Free will. Free market. What's so hard to understand about that?

Responsibility isn’t something people are born with. It’s learned. It’s learned by prioritizing, making tradeoffs, weighing the benefits, costs, and risks of alternative courses of action, and dealing with the consequences of one’s decisions.

When an overprotective parent spoils their child by shielding them from hard lessons, or gives the child whatever it wants so the child will love them more, they fail to instill in the child a sense of responsibility. Instead they encumber it with a false sense of entitlement to whatever the child desires. Later, the child is faced with a rude awakening when thrust into a world where it has to compete with others who are accustomed to making hard choices and working for the things they desire.

Once a sense of entitlement is engrained in someone’s belief system, it’s difficult to overcome. Developing a sense of responsibility is counter to their conditioning, and they cannot easily grasp the notion that they are really not entitled to anything they haven’t earned. When something doesn’t come easily, instead of getting fired up with a sense of determination to work harder and make the necessary sacrifices to achieve their goal, they feel resentful that it isn’t provided for them. Whatever nominal effort they put into it seems like it ought to be enough. They feel a deep sense of personal injustice that they can’t have things that other people have, oblivious to the tradeoffs and sacrifices others have had to make to acquire those things.

In the real world, nobody is entitled to own a house. If you can’t afford a house, the responsible thing to do is to work and save and sacrifice until you can afford to buy one. By encouraging people to buy houses they really can’t afford, the government sets them up for failure later on when the house payments become a burden they cannot sustain. And when that time comes, the “homeowners” won’t consider that, until their mortgage is paid in full, the house isn’t actually theirs. Instead, they’ll feel entitled to the house in which they’re living, and deeply resentful of losing it.

A person who buys a house incurs a responsibility. If they’re shielded from the full impact of the responsibility they’re incurring, by making it easier than it would be (in a free market) for them to assume it, it gives them a false sense of security and makes the responsibility seem lighter than it is. That is not a wise thing to do. And the current economic crisis is a perfect illustration of that folly. Yet the government is going down the same path again, with the FHA taking on the role once played by AIG.

This is just one of many examples of the government fostering an entitlement mentality in its citizens. Perhaps, like the parent who spoils their child in an attempt to buy its love, politicians see this as a way to buy votes. But, like overprotective parents trying to make life easier for their precious dumplings, when government shields people from the onus of personal responsibility, it does not strengthen them; it weakens them. And it not only weakens the individual beneficiaries of the government’s largesse, it weakens the entire economy, and the underlying moral fiber of our nation.

For years, our government has been actively encouraging people to become less and less self-reliant. By the same token, it has been making us more and more dependent on government. The flip side of dependency is control. The more dependent one is on another, the more control the other has over them. Perhaps the underlying motivation is not so innocent as politicians trying to buy their constituents’ love. Perhaps it’s far more insidious.

The current crisis in our nation is not just an economic crisis. It has far broader implications. The only way out of this crisis is to bring about a fundamental change. — Not the kind of change that accelerates the crisis, leading to ever more weakness, dependency, and state control, but a return to the once deeply-held values that made this country great: personal responsibility, individual sovereignty, and economic freedom.

We are becoming a nation of sheep. A sheep has lost the intelligence of it’s wild ancestor. It does not need brains. Being totally dependent on the shepherd, is a good life for some. Being sheared doesn’t seem to bother them. They are fat, dumm, and happy.

Obama is my shepherd, I shall suffer no want.
He maketh me to use only the green energy:
he leadeth me beside the still factories.

He restoreth my government check: he leadeth me in the paths of Reverend Wright for his name’s sake.

Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of capitalism; I will fear no evil; for Barak and Nancy art with me; thy teleprompter and thy whitehouse staff they comfort me.

Though preparest a table before me, stolen from the taxpayers, mine enemies; thou will drilleth for no oil; my gas tank runneth empty.

Surely welfare and poverty shall follow all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of Obama forever.

The whole “messiah” angle of dissent these days from the reformed-dissent-haters really amuses me. Oh, the belly laughs! I just need to stop by here more often and whenever I need to improve my mood. :)

After the debacle of 2000, conservatives seem to have developed disdain for a real voter getter. Is that it?

Of course, blindly supporting a nitwit alcoholic coke user just because he believes in the same imaginary friend as you has NOTHING messiah-like about it at all, right?

It’s sad we elected a nitwit cigarette smoking coke user to replace the alcoholic. Looks like he has a compulsive spending problem as well ;-) I guess he believes in spending imaginary money, IRS reciepts are down 34% from last year, so now we’re even farther in the hole than we were when the OMB said we were fucked! Way to go, Obungler!
And now we own a bankrupt car company! Why couldn’t he buy us a good company, like Toyota?
I’m very amused by all the comparisons of Obama to Spock, if only we could see his transcripts from Columbia and Harvard…

Bush is pretty harmless on his own, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are causing real damage. I just hope I can get my house paid off before the inflation/interest rate/punative tax rate wave comes and hits us, Carter, part II is starting. After that we’ll get Reagan, part II. Then Obungler can go do something useful, for which he is well suited, like shilling for ACORN and nailing some boards on Habitat for Humanity photo-ops.
I’m doing pretty well in the Russian stock market at the moment, I may have invest in a Dacha and move some capital out. No sense in paying taxes that will be wasted by this clown and his cohort of morons.

I am old enough to have lived through Carter. It seems others have not. All of this feel good, green socialist BS, has never worked anywhere it has been tried. Even Clinton had the horse sense to abandon the worst of the left wing agenda. I am wondering if it is better for Obama to get all of his crap through, so that it blows up in his face fast enough for the mid term election.

I know Obama doesn’t have a clue about economics, only politics. Geithner, and Bernanke are not that stupid. I wonder how much longer they will play chicken with the bond market. They are inflating our currency to reinflate the housing market. What they have mostly done is inflate the price of gasoline. The low price of gasoline was the primary factor in the recovery this year.

If I had the money to lose, I would be buying oil futures and be betting on another oil bubble.

I’ve always been afraid of Russia as an investment. It is too much like Venezuela, in that the government is all too eager to nationalize companies and seize your profits.

if you like oil, you’ll love Russia!
here is a pretty good book by a guy that runs a fund there.http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470269782/ref=ox_ya_oh_product
Economically Russia is experienceing much faster growth than is possible in the west.
Their stock market is far more volitile, the fund described in this book lost about 90% of it’s value when the shit hit the fan, I bought in after it pulled up a bit.

Even though I won’t do it now, I’d like to know more about this DXO . As I said, “If I had the money to lose,”. Too rich for my right wing blood. Still it will be interesting to crow on this site if I call it right. The worst I could be wrong, would be for oil to be flat, I can’t see it in danger of going down again.

So far I’ve been right on the rebound in the US stock market, since March. Many of my co-workers bailed out of the stock market in their 401ks. I rode it to the bottom and I’ve ridden it part way up. The two things that scare me about it continuing to rise are oil and Obama’s big mouth.

LOL…yea, “harmless” in that he lied us into an unnecessary war, ballooned the federal deficit with more failed “supply-side” economic policies, violated both U.S. AND International Law by ignoring the rules of war, etc., etc….please Taco…

Hmmm, Obumbler is going to do 3x the damage that Bush did to the deficit, and that’s just in his first year! Congress, including your little buddies Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (and the Honorable Hillary Clinton as well), agreed with Bush and gave permission for the war, so point the finger at yourself. Personally, I did not like the excuse for the war, i would have said “Saddam has performed unacceptable atrocities and we need to remove him”, that’s quite a lot easier to prove (I’ve seen some wonderful snuff films out of Iraq, the Iraqis are very creative in the ways they kill each other). The ‘violations’ are pretty minor, water boarding people that collectively killed 3000 Americans, please, that’s nothing, nobody cares except a bunch of pansies on DailyKos. I went to SERE school, it’s nothing to me. I would have used some harsher methods. Maybe a power drill, Iraqis use that. I’d happily challenge any other country on the planet involved in a conflict to show better behavior and restraint than the US. No other country is even close.
I was terrified of Huckabee, I hate the God Squad with a passion, but now I’m starting to wonder. I’ve seen him on TV a few times, he’s funny as hell and clearly a smart guy, and Oposter makes him look batter and better all the time. I’m starting to wonder…

“Obumbler is going to do 3x the damage that Bush did to the deficit, and that’s just in his first year!”

So much for the famed “conservative” philosophy of “personal responsibility” eh?? Blaming the vast-majority of the super-huge deficit that Obama *obviously* inherited from GWB on Obama…priceless & clueless…

“Congress, including your little buddies Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (and the Honorable Hillary Clinton as well), agreed with Bush and gave permission for the war, so point the finger at yourself.”

I don’t think so Taco…our state’s entire Congressional delegation voted against the War in Iraq, and what Congress authorized GWB to do was not only based on a pile of baloney, it *required” him to use “DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS” that were supposed to be fully explored before starting the war, which was never done, period.

“i would have said ‘Saddam has performed unacceptable atrocities”

…with aid & comfort from the West, period.

“The ‘violations’ are pretty minor, water boarding people”

…which is defined as torture…for which there are NO exceptions, period.

“I went to SERE school”

…no, you really didn’t, and, even if you had, a lot of what as done to our own soliders there was torture, which we are banned from using on people from other nations, period end of story.

“I was terrified of Huckabee, I hate the God Squad with a passion, but now I’m starting to wonder. I’ve seen him on TV a few times, he’s funny as hell and clearly a smart guy, and Oposter makes him look batter and better all the time. I’m starting to wonder…”

Keep wondering…Mr. “Christian leader” is going to cancel himself out with that moron Palin in 2012…just watch & see…

Yes, Mr. Guy, I did go to SERE school, I was criminal #12 in my class, and I was enjoying myself a lot, espacially in Peoples’ Pond. You probably would not like it, there aren’t any gerbils there.
The vast majority of the deficit Obongo is creating is his, 1.8 trillion this year is about 4x last year. Personally, I’d have liked to spend less on Iraq, but when you start a war, you get to finish it, even if it is expensive. And as far as congress, they did nothing to start the war, they voted to approve all expenditures. So they supported it. A few whiners whined about it. It is funny how you spent years bashing Bush, and he easily bulldozed the Domocrat congress. Bulldozed them easier than a Greener in front of an Israeli bulldozer, they did everything they told him to do, like the little sheep they are. And I especially like Obunglers escalation of the war in Afghanistan, what a war monger, who knew?

LOL…thanks for the further evidence that you NEVER went to SERE school…as IF you moron…

“The vast majority of the deficit Obongo is creating is his, 1.8 trillion this year is about 4x last year.”

The GWB 2009 federal budget deficit was around $611 billion. The 2010 federal budget deficit is estimated to be $1.75 trillion, which includes the cost of the GWB-initiated TARP ($247 billion). So, over $858 billion (or about half) of the current budget deficit is a carry-over from the GWB years (meaning that if Obama had done nothing to the budget, that’s what the deficit would have been). Of course, that doesn’t even begin to account for all the federal spending that Obama had to undertake to re-start the economy that the Bush Regime trashed in the first place!

“Personally, I’d have liked to spend less on Iraq, but when you start a war”

…for no valid reasons that is.

“And as far as congress, they did nothing to start the war”

Oh, so now the 2002 vote by Congress means nothing eh?? Pick a position and try & stick with it Taco…

“It is funny how you spent years bashing Bush, and he easily bulldozed the Domocrat congress”

…and the will of the people that elected that Congress, which was to end the War in Iraq, period.

“they did everything they told him to do, like the little sheep they are.”

Nonsense.

“And I especially like Obunglers escalation of the war in Afghanistan”

You mean where our REAL enemies the Taliban & Al-Qaeda have been all this time?? LOL…you REALLY don’t know what it is that you’re talking about Taco, but what else is new eh??

On June 1, 2009 at 5:28 pm Alan Scott said:

I realize that to some, President Obama’s hypocrisy mean nothing. They rationalize it by saying, well Bush lied too. They can’t deny he lied, because the evidence is obvious. To those of us not charmed by Mr. Hope and Change, it is useful to record what was said by candidate Obama and then note what was then done by President Obama.

I offer the following concerning President Obull$#itter.

You will note that I took the trouble to find an Obama friendly source so that I am innocent of only using right wing material.

“Louis B. Susman, the new ambassador to the Court of St. James’s. Mr. Susman, a retired investment banker, earned the London posting not through diplomatic service but by collecting big checks for Mr. Obama’s campaign.”

“For a candidate who made grand promises to bring change to a capital where power and position are greased by money, the latest selections are a reminder that there are limits to just how much change the new president intends to bring.”

“Of the 18 nominees to date, just five are career diplomats, tapped for Iraq, Kosovo, Iceland, Brazil and Sri Lanka. The rest are a mix of fund-raisers, political figures, scholars and others from the private sector assigned desirable posts in places like Britain, France, Japan, China, Argentina, Ireland and Vatican City.”

I know this does not fit the stated topics of Entitlement and Dependency, but then neither does Faith bashing. I’ll just file it under Control.

I screamed my head off to anyone who would listen on TARP. I would have gone to a TEA party then if they had one, but Mr. Santelli hadn’t given his speech yet. It only lit the fuse to a barrel of discontent that has been filling for some time.

My reasoning is dead on. You have not refuted anything I said. I will be perfectly willing to argue detail for detail anything Bush or any other Republican did.

It is funny. I take an Obama friendly source and agree with their point. I say Obama is a hypocrite, but you say I’m a hypocrite for not comparing him to Bush. I choose to compare President Obama to the standard CANDIDATE Obama said he would govern by.

If you bring up Bush’s faults, I will debate you point for point. When I bring up what I believe are Obama’s faults, kindly debate me point for point also. MG never could. When I short circuited his brain with facts or proved his facts false he would call me a troll.

You seem to still be blinded by the image of Obama. When anything goes well, such as the current stock market, it was brought on by the magnificent brilliance of Obama. When something does not go so well it is obviously something left over from Bush. You guys have gone far this year with that reasoning.

I also think that bashing the Christian religion to score browny points is b$.

“Your reasoning is faulty and your angry profane insults will not serve you well.”

This is just par for the course when it comes to this troll. When you school him on one issue, he just changes the subject to something entirely different. It’ll never end, which is one of the many reasons that it’s just better to ignore him. He’ll sputter on all by himself.

“When I short circuited his brain with facts or proved his facts false he would call me a troll.”

The troll tends to lie as well…lol…after schooling his sorry behind on energy issues over & over & over again for literally several months, it just became pointless. The troll will NEVER admit that he’s completely wrong…he’s just here to stir the pot, period.

I love how they now bring that how up the stock market doing well now means “nothing”, when several months ago the performace of the stock market was the end-all-be-all measure of how our economy was doing. It’s all a bunch of mindless nonsense…lol…

Poor Mr. Gui, blaming the huge deficit on Bush, when the democratic congress approved all of this spending. Take some responsibility! The Democrats have had control of the purse strings for 3 years now, 3 years of recession, $5/gallon gas, wars, etc etc. You don’t get to blame it all on Bush, YOU elected his enablers, smegbreath. And the CRA cracksmoker-enrichment program which caused the credit crisis was a democrat device as well. But plase, keep blaming it on Bush, somehow this has been helping his and Cheney’s poll numbers. I think the only thing that could have made Bush and Cheney look good was electing Obama!
You ought to come and I’ll cook you something I learned to make when I was in SERE school, it was so that people threw up after they ate it, then the instructors made them eat it again, it was pretty cool.

Facts and truth have as much meaning to Mr. Gui as they did to Pravda. Another unpleasant fact for Democrats. Their good buddy Angelo Mozilo had a fraud lawsuit filed against him today by the Feds. Angelo had many friends. Sen. Chris Dodd, Sen.Kent Conrad, Obama advisor James Johnson, Fannie Mae’s Franklin Raines. These clowns, along with Congressman Barney Frank helped bring down the US financial system. Yet Mr.Gui will say it was tax cuts and deregulation that did it. Facts and truth have no meaning to the hope and change masses.

Wigglesworth,

I hate when I have to explain the humor. The 57 states and Muslim country were references to remarks that your hero President Obama made, and you guys say that Gov. Palin is stupid. I bet if she were VP, no one would know about the super secret VP bunker that Biden blabbed about. Then again, I’m sure the terrorists want to keep Biden alive. He’s more valuable to them that way.

Sorry, Alan. Wrong again. Obama is not my “hero.” I did vote for him, though, since I thought he was preferable to McCain.

I think you are also wrong on what constitutes “humor” but that’s your right. I knew it was yet another insult you were flinging but I couldn’t be bothered to invest the few seconds of my life it would have taken to “get” the joke.

Ah, more insults. Useful as always. For a second there I thought you were talking about Bin Laden. You know, the guy that Bush promised to smoke out dead or alive? But I doubt you want that brought up. Biden dead and Laden alive. Got it.

“Poor Mr. Gui, blaming the huge deficit on Bush, when the democratic congress approved all of this spending. Take some responsibility!”

You really wouldn’t know the definition of “personal responsibility” Taco, since the GOP controlled Congress for the vast majority of GWB’s debt-enabling Presidency.

“The Democrats have had control of the purse strings for 3 years now, 3 years of recession, $5/gallon gas, wars, etc etc.”

LOL…the current recession started in Dec of 2007 moron, and it was caused by the collapse of the housing market, which led to bank collapses in the U.S. & Europe…causing the amount of available credit to be sharply curtailed, resulting in massive liquidity & solvency crises. High oil prices (which increased 3-4 times during the GWB Presidency BTW), stock markets crashes worldwide, and a banking collapse in the USA (which was caused by massive GOP-sponsored deregulation) exsaserbated the situation. BTW, who exactly started the War in Iraq?? It wasn’t a Democratic President…that’s for sure, but one will be ending it very soon now…whether you like it or not!

“You don’t get to blame it all on Bush, YOU elected his enablers”

No, I really didn’t, and BTW, homophobia is so out of fashion these days Taco…but it’s par for the course for the likes of you…

“And the CRA cracksmoker-enrichment program which caused the credit crisis was a democrat device as well.”

LOL…keep spinning the same GOP talking points Taco…NO ONE is buying them!

“You ought to come and I’ll cook you something I learned to make when I was in SERE school”

Exactly, the current recession started as soon as the Democrats took control of congress. And the housing crisis happened because the banks loaned money to people who could not pay it back. Because some goody-goody liberals thought it was unfair that people who can’t qualify for a loan could not get one, hence the CRA. And now it’s Bush’s fault that stupid poor people who can’t do math got loans they could not pay? Too bad we can’t open debtors’ prisons and get something out of these losers, I bet quite a few would suddenly be able to pay back their loans… And those that could not could beautify the sidewalk so I would not get any dirt on my bike when I rode to work.

You are very funny Mr. Guy, While I was in SERE school you were figuring out how to service the glory hole at the local truck stop. Front first or back first? decisions, decisions… Almost a good troll, too bad you were too chicken to serve, Mr. Guy, you would have been the guy at SERE school who tried to run away! (there is probably 1 on every class, ours was executed, which was kind of cool)

hmmm, homophobia, amusing, I’ll have to tell my gay friends that I’m homophobic, they will be amused.

Gallup says Cheney is now more popular than Pelosi, the clock is ticking, the pendulum is swinging back, the Obunko ride is slowly stalling.

Here is a pretty picture that illustrates Oblunders stupid fiscal policy, I know all those blows to the skull have made you a bit dull, but even you can tell that this kind of sucks far beyond anything Bush ever did:http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10014
Obungler spends like a CRA-funded cracksmoker, it’s amazing!

“Exactly, the current recession started as soon as the Democrats took control of congress.”

Wow, you really are dumb as a post Taco…the Dems took over Congress in January 2007, not December 2007.

“And the housing crisis happened because the banks loaned money to people who could not pay it back.”

Nope, wrong again moron. The banks & other financial institutions got into trouble because they stopped being what they were originally intended to be, and they started speculating in markets that should have never been allowed to exist in the first place…but were all made possible by GOP-sponsored deregualtion, period.

“Because some goody-goody liberals thought it was unfair that people who can’t qualify for a loan could not get one, hence the CRA.”

The CRA had nothing to do with any of the current mess that we’re in right now.

“While I was in SERE school you were figuring out how to service the glory hole at the local truck stop.”

LOL…further homophobia from you Taco won’t change the FACT that you never went to SERE school, period.

“too bad you were too chicken to serve, Mr. Guy”

Too chicken?? Nah, too smart that is…many in my family wasted their time in the military, and I simply learned from their own admitted mistakes.

“I’ll have to tell my gay friends that I’m homophobic”

LOL…while you’re at it homophobe, try telling them exactly the words that you’ve used here…they will NOT be amused!

“Gallup says Cheney is now more popular than Pelosi, the clock is ticking, the pendulum is swinging back, the Obunko ride is slowly stalling.”

Keep dreaming…Cheney is out of office now for good, and he was wrong about just about everything that he ever advocated for when he was in office recently, so he has ZERO credibility now.

“Here is a pretty picture that illustrates Oblunders stupid fiscal policy, I know all those blows to the skull have made you a bit dull, but even you can tell that this kind of sucks far beyond anything Bush ever did”

LOL…notice when federal revenues were outpaced once again by federal outlays by chance?? It was at the start of the Bush Regime, which has continued to get worse & worse since then.

Expecting Obama to immediately solve all of the MASSIVE fiscal problems that have obviously been left over from the Bush Regime…priceless & clueless…but par for the course from the likes of you Taco…

On June 6, 2009 at 6:41 pm Alan Scott said:

wigglesworth,

It is true that Bush did fail to get Osama. See I can admit “my guy’s” failures. Bush did render Osama an ineffective “has been”. The most important job of the President is to defend the country. I believe that history will show that President Bush succeeded, inspite of what you and your “heroes” at MSNBC say.

Afghanistan is now Obama’s war to win. At some point he will have to stop blaming Bush. He wanted the job, he got it.

I also believe that history will mark this as the start of the American decline as a world power. Obama promised you a large increase in your entitlements. It’s why you put him in office. It’s why I voted against him. No country can have massive social spending and a first class military. Europe has proven that. TAKE a few seconds and research it.

haha, I knew it, Mr. Guy stayed home while the people who cared enough to served. Too bad, Mr. Guy, we would have enjoyed watching you cry in basic training. You probably would have never made it to anywhere where you could even apply for SERE school (not just anyone gets the chance to go, I was required to go). You could have worked in Military Intelligence, they are big on ‘don’t ask, dont’t tell’, and have been for years, wink wink, nod nod, I’m sure you could have found a place to fit in over there, given what a genius you are. You are welcome for my service, Mr. Guy. I bet you don’t pay taxes, either, so I guess you are welcome to my money as well! You are lucky their are people like me for people like you to suck off of! But we do not mind, the weak have leached off the strong throughout the history of the species, but when times get tough, the weak get disposable. Obama is bringing on some big FAIL, I hope you make it through, I know I will ;-)

hahaha, poor Mr. Guy can’t take it that I did something he could never possibly do, is not capable of doing, and could not handle!! Come read my dd-214, I can prove what I’ve done. Sadly, the weak like you need the strong like me to protect your freedom to whine ;-) Which we enjoy doing, we want to keep you safe and warm in your mom’s basement, free from all pain, happy and having fun, all the time!
homophobia is being scared of homosexuals, I merely make fun of them. I also enjoyed “Zorro the Gay Blade”, the movie Wigglesworth stole his handle from. And I’ve probably seen the Rocky Horror Picture Show more times than you as well. And I don’t call gay friends heterophobic when they call me hetboy, breeder, or wonder where I found whoever I’m sleeping with. You are getting just a little bit touchy there, Mr. Guy (is your first name Bob? hahaha.) And calling me a homophobe is just as pejorative as me calling a gay person a fag. But you knew that ;-)
I bet you “fair share” of taxes was a an EITC check, hahaha, you are welcome for the handout, dud. That’s OK, the ~$60k in income tax I paid last year can support a lot of duds.

On June 7, 2009 at 10:09 am Alan Scott said:

President Obama recently waved his magic wand and announced that health care groups agreed to cut the increase of costs by $ 2 trillion. This is all from an article in National Review. The rate of growth is 6% per year.

Obama had his meaningless charts and graphs. He said the associations promised to cut growth by 1.5% per year. The problem is, individual members apparently have no idea how to do this. Now the American Hospital Association says that President Obama did not tell the truth. It was not 1.5% per year but 1.5% over 10 years. Guess what, there ain’t no $2 trillion in
savings there to pay for Obama’s plan.

The American Hospital Association says, “the A.H.A. did not commit to support the Obama health plan.”

How about it Mister Guy, how about it wigglesworth? Would you care to discuss facts?

Do you still just blindly believe what President Obama says, when the facts do not support him?

““It is a little bit ironic that most of our most significant trading partners and partners globally have taken the tack that they’ll reduce corporate tax rates to stimulate economic growth and not raise corporate tax rates,” Thompson said.”

I guess it shouldn’t be such a surprise, after all, he did say on national TV, that we couldn’t sustain this deficit spending, so he wants to spend more to get us out of it.

On June 8, 2009 at 1:11 am DJ said:

Anyone interested in buying my shares of Government Motors?

GM is on the uptick, now that Dear Leader is at the helm, we can expect cars like the Trabant Hybrid to come rolling out…how long before a luxury tax is placed on every vehicle sold that is NOT made by Government motors? Over-Under is three years.

I love facts. Regarding the $2 trillion in health care growth savings, you say Obama said it was 1.5% per year and the AHA said it was 1.5% over 10 years. If you have a source for that fact I’ll be happy to take a look.

P.S. Why do you keep making up stuff out of thin air? I’ve never once said I have “heroes” on MSNBC. Inventing things hurts your credibility. But I’m still willing to go consider your fact if you provide the source.

I do not have a website address for you. My source is the magazine National Review. I have the hard copy in front of me. What I posted is my take on what the article said. The numbers I posted are from the article. I realize that you have no reason to trust National Review. I trust them. You have to trust me as to the content. I thought you might want to go to your sources and dispute what I wrote.

“But I’m still willing to go consider your fact if you provide the source.”

Again, I would be happy to send you the original article. I would be happy to send you the entire magazine. Of course it might cause you severe anger, but it would be like reading secret enemy dispatches.

I did not post the article word for word because I do not know if there would be a copyright issue posting it here.

“P.S. Why do you keep making up stuff out of thin air? I’ve never once said I have “heroes” on MSNBC. Inventing things hurts your credibility.”

I am taking poetic license. You write as if they are your heroes. You definitely agree with most of what they speak. MG writes as if he runs the place.

Alan, I can appreciate poetic license. Unfortunately I don’t watch much MSNBC so I’m not even sure who you are referring to. Might you be wrong again? But I’m understandably curious now. What did I write that made you think I had a “hero” at MSNBC and who did you think it was?

“Sadly, the weak like you need the strong like me to protect your freedom to whine”

Keep those delusions of grandeur to yourself there Taco…I certainly don’t need anything from the likes of you…

“homophobia is being scared of homosexuals, I merely make fun of them.”

Wow, your ignorance knows no bounds does it Taco?? Homophobia is the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals, which you engage in here almost daily these days with your silly schoolyard taunts. I’ll bet your supposed gay friends would LOVE to read them all…you bigot!

“And calling me a homophobe is just as pejorative as me calling a gay person a fag.”

And your ignorance continues unabated…sheesh…

“I bet you ‘fair share’ of taxes was a an EITC check”

LOL…as IF I’ve ever earned so little to qualify for one since that tax law was in effect…what a moron you really are Taco…

“That’s OK, the ~$60k in income tax I paid last year can support a lot of duds.”

My favorite asshat has returned! Hmm, the likes of me, well, I think you have no idea about the likes of me, maybe if you walked a mile in my moccasins, but sadly, they are a little big for you, little guy.
Scared == “Homophobia is the irrational fear of, aversion to…”, I can say it with one word, you require more, how inefficient, you are quite the pseudo-pedant. You must have had a lot of time to read in the prison library! I need to work on my insults more, can you explain “tossing the salad” to me? I never quite got that one.
mmm, now you are calling me a bigot, I think given the sad level of your invective I’ll have to call pot-kettle-black on you, sweetcheeks.
Given your familiarity with EITC it is pretty safe to assume you qualify! Weren’t you a welfare kid? I’ll have to read a few old blog entries and re-read the part where you were bragging about how poor you were. You remind me of the Dead Kennedys song “Holiday in Cambodia” (I will always remember that concert, it was pretty cool). I had to give my little brother crap for taking EITC, too, so don’t feel too bad, he has a lot more grants now and the university has raised his pay, so he’s off the dole.
I don’t have too many loopholes, and clearly I’m smarter than you, I probably pay more in taxes than you make, you flatter me with your obvious envy! Poor little Mr. Guy, tries so hard! Yet no result! I had a goal when I left the Army to pay more in taxes than a General makes in pay, and I’ve hit this a few times (last year was not my best year, but it was decent). Maybe someday you’ll make as much as I pay in taxes, maybe you are a super-bagger at the grocery store you work at and some rich old lady will leave you a big tip.
You are almost good at calling names, etc, little guy! Come back when you find something you are actually good at, you are kind of failing as an in-your-face KosBot, you are kind of funny though, and I know I can count on hours of enjoyment from you. I understand your issues ;-) keep it up!! (k)

That’s funny, since I’ve never commented even once at Kos (I’ve never liked the tone of the site), and I’ve only read a handful of articles that have ever been printed there, but what else is new eh?? You NEVER know what it is that you are trying to talk about Taco…

On June 10, 2009 at 2:48 pm Alan Scott said:

Wigglesworth,

“What did I write that made you think I had a “hero” at MSNBC and who did you think it was?”

It’s hard to think of anyone at MSNBC who would not be your hero. Just watch any week night from 7 PM to 10 PM. I used to watch just to spy on the enemy, but I cannot anymore since my nausea medication ran out.

Their theme is basically Bush sucks. Anyone that ever said anything good about Bush sucks. Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Anyone that thinks differently sucks.

As far as what you wrote. You gave me a little bit of work to go through the boards. Unfortunately I cannot explain the contexts because of space. I am leaving much out because of the same reason.

“Of course, blindly supporting a nitwit alcoholic coke user just because he believes in the same imaginary friend” I have an idea, but I want you to tell me what imaginary friend you meant.

“Oil Drilling: I feel the last 60 years or so the U.S. has squandered an opportunity to develop an alternative to oil. We coasted on the fossil fuels and now we’re paying for it.

Global Warming: The impact of man on Earth in the last two hundred years is completely unprecedented. I feel we should reduce, reuse and recycle and as much as possible strive to be impact neutral.”

“I find it interesting to note that we’ve lost more U.S. servicemen and servicewomen fighting the “war on terror” than we did on 9/11″

“Left: That’s because he was left a problem of enormous proportions. The debt created by Bush, the two ongoing wars, AND an economic recession severely exacerbating the situation. Let’s see tax cuts for the rich fix all that.”

Alan, take a chill-pill, or better yet, a bonghit, it will help with the nausea. Clearly Wigglesworth does not does not watch MSNBC. He’s actually interested in informed debate (Unlike that masterdebater Mr. Guy, who merely likes the sound of his own heavy breathing). If you argued with Wigglesworth about one thing at a time per post, it would be a lot more interesting. Clear he is a liberal, and you are not, so don’t debate that, we already know ;-)

“Biden said Amtrak was getting its share of stimulus money and more projects would be announced in a few days. Then he offered this:

“Look, this is designed, this totally new tunnel, is designed to provide for automobile traffic,” Biden said. “It’s something, as you know, up your way, that’s been in the works and people have been clamoring for for a long time.”

For the record, the tunnel is for trains, and its completion would allow for more NJ Transit trains during peak hours and “one-seat” rides into Midtown Manhattan on lines serving Bergen and Passaic counties. Currently riders on those lines must switch trains.”

I am thankful that we don’t have a stupid woman just one heart beat away from the Presidency. It’s so much more reassuring to have an old fossilized Senator waiting on the bench, than a young Governor.

The bit about the coke user was my comment in direct response to something that was said about Obama’s supporters. I will not expend the energy to go back and look for it, but it was basically calling them fanatics, followers or kool-aid drinkers or something of that ilk. I was merely pointing out that on the other hand, Bush got votes, probably a lot of them, from folks simply because they happened to share a belief in the same god. Yes, the imaginary friend I referred to was God. One of my favorite sayings is: Adults don’t need an imaginary friend.

Re: The Bush Sucks Theme. Yes, I do believe he sucks. That is my opinion. It is based on what I consider a shaky election in 2000 and that he’s a lifelong slacker. What I fail to understand, however, is how that theme is any different than The Obama Sucks Theme? Maybe you could clue me in on that. Apparently one of those bothers you and the other one doesn’t. Go figure! :)

I couldn’t help but notice there is a serious ongoing debate on the national stage right now pertaining to the word “inherited.” As in: Did Obama inherit the economic crisis? Huh? Hello? D’uh!!! That is a masterful stroke of genius to get such a ludicrous notion to the point of actually being seriously discussed in ANY way, shape or form. Of course he inherited a mess. Unless, of course, Obama is the most powerful man in the history of the planet and made it all happen in his first 100 days, including all the stuff the preceded his election. See, this is where I start to get bitter. When things turn in such a decidedly intellectually dishonest direction. It makes me feel like giving up hope.

re: imaginary friend
Hey Wigglesworth, I was listening to NPR the other day and they ran this series:http://www.npr.org/news/specials/2009/brain/
The science around religion and belief is fascinating, I think there is a little more to it that “imaginary friend”. Personally, I’m pretty much an atheist, but there are very significant social and psychological aspects of religion that are definitely worth understanding. What do you think?

The market rewards those that produce. Those would be the useful. Those that do not produce would be the useless. Sadly, the useless feel they have the right to take from the useful. That is the saddest thing of all.

“The market rewards those that produce. Those would be the useful. Those that do not produce would be the useless.”

Ahhh, more worshiping at the altar of the “the market”. For those that claim to have little faith in God (for which I have none as well), it’s a amusing to see the leaps of faith that they will make over & over again at the altar of “the market”. “The market”, of course, would surely never discriminate against or exploit some for the benefit of a few others would it?? Please…

On June 12, 2009 at 9:41 am Tuco said:

Mr. Guy, of course the market is a rough place, but, like democracy, it may be messy, but it is preferable to the alternatives.
If you know of a better system, please do tell! Even democracy is flawed is ways that may cause it to fail, tyranny of the majority is always lurking. People happily and foolishly voting themselves the work of others is always here, in fact, that is what will probably bring about the ruin of the country.
Just look at entitlement spending, and look at the weak politicians like Obonga who don’t have the stomach to tell people who may vote for him “Benefits need to be cut, means-tested, and reduced. SS and Medicare need to go fewer people. The SS age / retirement age needs to be raised.” Instead he says “raise taxes on the rich”. Sadly, all them money the rich make will not put any dent in the coming entitlement wave, but when you do the equation on votes, you see that supplicating the “95% who will get a tax cut” but fucking over the “5% of wealthy taxpayers” makes a lot of sense, even if it meaningless economically.
Our politicians are so driven by getting votes that SS and Medicare will not be fixed until they fail, and the fixes will be cuts. I do not expect to get SS, I do not think it’s financially possible for the system to exist in its current form by the time I will be eligible for it, so I will resist paying for it as much as possible now. Money in the stock market is a much safer bet for me than money in the SS system. Markets are safer bets than governments.
So some people lose in the market. Big deal. There will always be losers. Would you rather have a market to participate in, or would you rather let some bureaucrat pick who wins and who loses? After spending time in China, Russia, and the US, the market is clearly a better place.

It’s the economic system that we have in the USA right this second…a mixed economy, which is the most successful type of economy in the world.

“Even democracy is flawed is ways that may cause it to fail, tyranny of the majority is always lurking.”

In the long run, if one *really* believes in democracy that is, there is no such thing as the “tyranny of the majority”.

“‘Benefits need to be cut, means-tested, and reduced. SS and Medicare need to go fewer people. The SS age / retirement age needs to be raised.’ Instead he says ‘raise taxes on the rich’. Sadly, all them money the rich make will not put any dent in the coming entitlement wave”

I do not believe that SS benefits need to be “means tested” at all, but I do strongly agree that the SS full retirement age needs to be raised as people naturally live longer & longer. Gradually increasing that age to 70 would produce a 36% reduction in the projected SS shortfall. Also, raising the cap on SS taxes to 90% of taxable earnings will equate to a 39% reduction in the projected SS shortfall. It also will only affect 6% of taxpayers or the top 15% of income earners…they can afford it as well. Right there…that’s solving about 75% of the problem with SS!

“supplicating the ‘95% who will get a tax cut’ but fucking over the ‘5% of wealthy taxpayers’ makes a lot of sense, even if it meaningless economically.”

Cutting the payroll taxes for the vast majority of Americans is not “meaningless” by any means.

“Money in the stock market is a much safer bet for me than money in the SS system.”

This is a ridiculous statement. Your return on investment MAY be greater in the stock market over the long-term, but the money that’s invested in specialized govt. securities has a guaranteed rate of return. It’s all a matter of how much risk one wants to take on. You & I can’t invest in the exact types of securities that SS Trust Fund is invested in anyways…

So in your world money equates to “usefulness” in society. Things like how the money was obtained (slavery, dishonesty, breaking laws, etc) are secondary considerations. It is only the green that matters!

For example, a woman who never worked a day in her life who marries a rich man and then inherits everything and now drives around town in a Hummer with a poodle on her lap is more “useful” than an honest man who has worked every day since he turned 16.

Wigglesworth,
You are spinning what Tuco said, several places in this thread you have accused people of that or similar tactics, now you are using them…hardly intellectually honest.

Here is Tuco’s statement “The market rewards those that produce. Those would be the useful. Those that do not produce would be the useless”

He is not referencing some broad marrying into money, he is talking about production. People who wake up in the morning and have a desire to produce things in order to earn a living. The result of producing is a paycheck that was EARNED, not a handout that was GIVEN. I am sure you can see the difference between that and someone marrying into money.

Granted, whether the money was received as the result of an inheritance or through hard work, it is still money.

We on the “right” believe in earning your way through life, not receiving handouts. For me, the most significant question is Why am I responsible for improving your lifestyle? Please Wigglesworth, answer that question for me.

I work hard. I did 22 years in the worlds finest Navy, I retired and know I work in the semi-conductor industry, I am a producer, I make stuff that makes a corporation a shit-ton of money, they then reward me with a paycheck (and other benefits) for what I produced that made them shit-tons of money, it is a great arrangement! When we have an extremely profitable year, I go in and I negotiate a raise (I am 2 for 2 fwiw), this year we lost money, I will not be asking for a raise. What entilies you (or anyone for that matter) to one cent of what I have earned? Please answer that queastion as well Wigglesworth.

Nice strawman, Wigglesworth, and I’m sorry you are so jealous and resentful of those that have something you have not. I could understand you being angry if they had taken it away from you, but if they got it by fair means, then it’s fair. If you want more, then be more useful. You are sitting here pounding away on your keyboard while you could be:
1.) learning a skill that will make you more money
2.) performing some useful work
As DJ said, the vast majority of the wealthy got it fair-and-square. I totally agree with you that anyone who got their money through “slavery, dishonesty, breaking laws, etc” should go to jail and have their money taken away and shared with all the poor pipples.
And, FWIW, I specifically said “Those that produce”, not “those that have a pile.” I would laugh my ass off if Obungler and his crooked cronies decided that nobody needed to have more than a billion and shaved off everything over a billion that anyone had. You notice they never do this.
Why, you may ask?
Because they count on those super-rich folks to empower them. Obumba is a tool of guys like George Soros, a billionaire that I am sure has all of our best interests at heart… and who surely made his pile honestly ;-) Those are the guys you need to be worrying about, those are the people that the pipple like me who are working hard and attempting to get rich worry about.

On June 12, 2009 at 12:55 pm Wigglesworth said:

That is, by the way, one of the big flaws about calling taxes against the wealthy a “war on achievement.”

How so? Most of “the rich” have earned what they have. Most of others have inherited fortunes from successful parents. Are you implying that should you invent some bauble that nets you a fortune, it should all be taxed away? that what you achieved should be taken simply because you achieved it?

Do you not desire, in small measure to “get rich” yourself and have the abiltiy to ensure your children live the best lifestyle possible?

OT: How is your wife doing? Last mention she had taken ill and you were having issues paying for her care, is she doing well?

I’d like to know how many of the rich really earned what they have, and of those that earned it, how many did so by honest and ethical means. I think that little sliver of the pie might be a lot smaller than you’d ever possibly imagine.

Apparently you are assuming I’m male. I don’t recall saying anything other than “spouse.” Anywho, my spouse went through a scary time and we had to make tough choices, like balancing things like food and rent against probability decisions related to health care. That is never fun to do. Thanks for asking.

On June 12, 2009 at 7:41 pm Tuco said:

man, this 2-reply limit makes it difficult to carry on a conversation

Tuco : “The market rewards those that produce. Those would be the useful. Those that do not produce would be the useless.”

Mr. Guy : Ahhh, more worshiping at the altar of the “the market”. For those that claim to have little faith in God (for which I have none as well), it’s a amusing to see the leaps of faith that they will make over & over again at the altar of “the market”. “The market”, of course, would surely never discriminate against or exploit some for the benefit of a few others would it?? Please…

Toco : Mr. Guy, you are a good atheist, so let me ask you a few questions.
First, would you consider religion a product of a natural process, or something artificial?
Second, if you look at the differences between a natural process (thinks like natural selection happening, etc) and something like religion or government (subjects of each are at the whims of the gods or governors, and have to beg for stuff), which would you rather subjected to?
Third, if you chose government over nature, then you are actually looking at the world as a religionist, someone who bows down and begs, rather than participates and is subject to a natural process.
In it’s purest form, a market is a lot more like a natural process than a government and a religion. You don’t need to worship it, you really ought to study it, and then you can decide to some extent whether you want to participate. The market has 2 major flaws right now
1.) too much regulation. The market is complex, and man has shown time and time again that he is not too good at complex things. The quants on Wall Street who were last the last decades heroes for figuring out the market are this year’s dogs because they didn’t actually know what the fuck they were doing. These guys are pretty smart, they use massive amounts of computational power to model things, and yet the mangled trillions of dollars in value.
2.) not enough transparency. you may think I’m contradicting myself here, but I’m not. Forcing companies to be transparent when they are in a market lets people make good decisions about how to participate. Nobody has a crystal ball and can predict the future, but the outright frauds like Madoff need to be much easier to see, and companies engaged in misinformation need to be caught. This is a very hard problem to solve, and if it was solved then things would get better. And there would be a huge market for technology to manage all this newly available data and I can make a lot of money working on that (See Wigglesworth, you can make lots of money by helping the pipples ;-) )
So Mr. Guy, you need to decide – trust in government, who you will need to beg for help like a disciple prays, and seek approval from like a dog seeks approval from its master, or the free market, which like the sun, earth, sky, and ocean can severely kick your ass if you don’t try to understand it and work with it.
I think I prefer the market. It does have its own whims, and it is not perfect, yet it is less capricious than man or god, and preferable for those who wish to manage their own fates.
It may kill me, but I don’t have to kiss its ass.
And when I want to see examples of discrimination and exploitation it’s very, very easy to see people doing this.

“First, would you consider religion a product of a natural process, or something artificial?”

How can belief in something that doesn’t exist be “a natural process”??

“Second, if you look at the differences between a natural process (thinks like natural selection happening, etc) and something like religion or government (subjects of each are at the whims of the gods or governors, and have to beg for stuff), which would you rather subjected to?”

The problem with this kind of analysis is that it assumes that “the market” is some kind of “natural law”, which it clearly isn’t…it’s a complete manifestation of man, period.

“Third, if you chose government over nature, then you are actually looking at the world as a religionist, someone who bows down and begs, rather than participates and is subject to a natural process.”

Again, this is only “true” in the most warped Right-wing mind that worships “the market” as if it’s some kind of universal law, which it simply isn’t, period.

Government is merely a group of individual persons that constitute the governing authority of a political unit or organization for, hopefully, the betterment of all in the long-run.

“The market has 2 major flaws right now
1.) too much regulation.”

Nonsense, the current financial mess that the USA is in right now is a direct result of the repeal of regulations that went into effect after the last Great Depression.

“yet the mangled trillions of dollars in value”

…in markets that should have NEVER been allowed to exist in the first place & wouldn’t have existed in the first place had it not been for the GOP-sponsored deregulation in the 1990s.

“not enough transparency.”

Tell that to the guys at Enron, which were allowed to do the things that they did by the very same GOPers that deregulated the financial sector for the good of “the market”. Companies actively resist regulations that require them to be as transparent as possible.

“… if they got it by fair means, then it’s fair.” If your if-statement is flawed, then everything that follows it must be flawed as well. Tell me, what percentage of wealth do you think is obtained by “fair means”? The guy who cheated on his tests in college then lied on resume and is now the Senior VP of an entertainment company making bank – is he one of your “producers” and “achievers?”

I’m not being intellectually dishonest when I’m furthering a point that I believe to be true. (Look up the definition of the phrase if this confuses you.) I’m merely pointing out that the possession of money is a lousy way of determining things like who is “useful” and who is “useless” or deciding other non-trivial things like who gets access to health care and who does not.

Someone at this point should be yelling, “Well, if you don’t like it, what system do you propose that’s better?” My answer, none. I think our system, flawed as it is, is probably the best, but it can and should be improved.

Until then, some good, decent and honest hard working people get called “useless” while some other scoundrels get filthy rich. This is one time I really hope the Bible is correct. (And no, I’m not saying that all poor people are honest and all rich people are crooks. I’m just pointing out an inconsistency in using money as the measuring stick for such things.)

More two cents from the keyboard pounder, which, incidentally, is the exact same thing the rest of you are doing. :)

“For example, a woman who never worked a day in her life who marries a rich man and then inherits everything and now drives around town in a Hummer with a poodle on her lap is more “useful” than an honest man who has worked every day since he turned 16.

Quite an odd way to view people, I must say.”

Free enterprise capitalism will never be perfect, it is just the best system ever devised by humans for the production and distribution of wealth.

Your example of a rich useless widow is really good. Historically it reoccurs frequently and basically it
does not advance your argument for bashing our current system.

A lot of civil war veterans received pensions that late in life left them well off. The ones that were single were targeted by young women for marriage. You had the spectacle of men in their 80s marrying 20 year olds, who once grandpa kicked off, were set for life with survivor’s pensions. These women did not fight in a war, but they got paid. Would you change the law to wipe out widows?

Then there was Anna Nicole Smith. Marries an old rich guy and except for some legal trouble from his children, she inherited much of his money. Now I’m not a fan of her, but rich guys who earned their money have a right to be stupid with it. Just like you had a right to give your’s to Obama’s election bid. Wait, I’m sorry, that’s probably not true.

Some of the “achievers” running around to this day are from families that “earned” their fortunes on the backs of slaves that has been passed down through generations. Your system rates those folks as “useful.”

Is there anyone other than me that believes Obama’s pay-as-you-go scheme to be the funniest piece of hypocrisy, so far, to come out of the clown circus???The guy whose spending has broken the bank, except that he owns the banks, is talking as if he cares about being responsible with our money.

“Mr. Obama proposed to give “pay-as-you-go” budgeting rules the force of law, which would require Congress to offset entitlement-spending increases and tax cuts, either with spending cuts or tax increases. But critics say the proposed rules are riddled with loopholes and would have little impact.”

“”This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said he has “serious concerns” about exemptions to the deficit curbs that would run to trillions of dollars.”

Again, it’s our money that Oporkma is spending. Why is it that only those of us on the right, see what is happening? Only we are not under his spell. Recently VP Biden said that “everyone guessed wrong” on the jobless figures and the stimulus. Remember that unemployment was predicted to stay below 8% if only Congress would pass the stimulus. It just hit 9.4%.

In the future when the rest of the feel good hippie left wing crap does not live up to it’s billing, some of us will say, No Joe everyone did not guess wrong, YOU guessed wrong and so did your boss. The rest of us did not have to guess, we knew it wouldn’t work.

“Pay-as-you-go” was one of the many ways that Clinton balanced the federal budget in the 1990s. Oh & BTW, it was the GOP leadership of Congress that did away with it…”fiscal responsibility”?? Nah, those are just words to the GOP…

On June 16, 2009 at 2:55 pm Alan Scott said:

Mister Guy,

Are you ready to defend what you wrote???????
Can you defend details????????????????????

““Pay-as-you-go” was one of the many ways that Clinton balanced the federal budget in the 1990s. Oh & BTW, it was the GOP leadership of Congress that did away with it…”fiscal responsibility”?? Nah, those are just words to the GOP…”

First of all, I question the relevance of bringing up what Clinton did in the 1990s. Did Clinton have massive stimulus caused deficits before his “Pay-as-you-go”was enacted? Did Clinton have all of the loopholes that Obama has in his “Pay-as-you-go”empty proposal?

Again do you have the guts to defend the differences between what happened in the 1990s, since you brought it up, and what’s happening now?

I will refresh your memory. The most important difference was that Clinton dropped his massive health care boondoggle before he got a balanced budget. Your hero Obama is not doing that.

Second Clinton had the advantage of a Republican House and to a lesser extent a Republican Senate after 1995. Poor Barak has Pelosi and Reid.

I will point out another thing your side misleads with all of the time. During Bush’s Presidency, the Republican majority in the House, was not as great as during Clinton’s surplus years. Also the Senate was basically even during most of the Bush years. It turns out that the biggest surpluses and smallest deficits of the Clinton-Bush years were when the most Republicans were in the House and Senate.

How are those deficits since Pelosi and Reid have had humongus majorites to get anything they want???

Please challenge my facts, or will you retreat to your usual drivel when you can’t? I will admit to anything that you can prove wrong.

What Clinton did in the 1990s (with NO GOP votes BTW) was turn around *massive* federal deficit spending by raising taxes (surprise, surprise) on mostly the rich.

Oh, and BTW, the original “pay-as-you-go” scheme was enacted with GWB’s father’s full approval in 1990. In 2001, the GOP Congress began removing discretionary spending by statute from the PAYGO scorecard (adding loopholes to it that is), and the PAYGO rules were allowed to lapse in the GOP House & watered down in the Senate, which made it easier for lawmakers to approve GWB’s huge tax cuts for mostly the rich & the Medicare prescription drug giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies. The Bush White House even admitted that the Medicare prescription drug plan would not meet the PAYGO requirements! With the gutting, then abandonment, of PAYGO, federal budget deficits returned of course. Like father, like son…not!

For the who-knows-what-time, who balanced the federal budget in the 1990s?? Bill Clinton & his Democratic allies in Congress did, period end of story.

I was hoping you would post some facts that contradicted mine. I don’t mind insults. I know you don’t have a background in history or economics, I was just hoping you would look something up that was relevant.

Mister Guy,

I am amazed that you had the guts to answer me. You actually argued issues. A big improvement for you. I noticed that you did not dispute my contention that budget deficits or surpluses were generally better during the years that more Republicans resided in Congress. In case you forgot Congress controls the purse strings.

I will concede that Clinton raised taxes, I do not concede that this was the reason for balanced budgets and a good economy. I contend the opposite.

In 1996 Bill Clinton said “the era of big government is over”. In his first term Clinton’s average spending as a percentage of GDP was 21.1%.I don’t have figures for his second term but, it continued to fall. Also during his first 3 and 1/2 years Clinton cut 150,000 federal workers from Uncle Sam’s payroll. I contend that Clinton’s success was keeping the federal governments intrusion in to the economy limited.

Contrast that with the Obama platform. The figure I have for Obama’s spending as a percentage of GDP is 27.7%. My argument is that Obama’s spending as a percentage of GDP is the difference between him and Clinton. I may be a little off with my figures but, not much.

“I noticed that you did not dispute my contention that budget deficits or surpluses were generally better during the years that more Republicans resided in Congress.”

LOL…you see, this is why discussing issues with trolls is pointless, since they don’t bother to *ever* read any links that are previously posted:

“Soon after May surplus projections were released, the Majority Party issued a flurry of press releases making the claim that so-called `Balanced Budget’ legislation and other bills enacted by Congress last year are responsible for this turnabout. Such claims are simply not credible. Just as it took years of fiscal imprudence in the 1980’s and early 1990’s to build up a $290 billion deficit by 1992, it took years of adhering to disciplined and responsible fiscal and monetary policies since 1992 to dig out of this deficit position.”

“According to the CBO data, the remarkable fiscal turnabout has been due to three primary factors: An improved economy with six years of sustained growth; legislation passed by the 103rd Democratic Congress in 1993 and 1994; and a slower rise in the cost of medical care (e.g., Medicare/Medicaid) than projected.

Conspicuously absent from CBO’s analysis of reasons for the 1998 surplus is the fiscal effect of laws enacted by Republican congresses between 1995 and the present date. The reason for this is that the CBO actually totes up legislation enacted in the period that Republican have been in control of Congress as raising the deficit by more than it cut in 1998. The sum total of laws passed by the 104th and 105th Republican congresses will cost the Treasury roughly $11,000,000,000 more in FY 1998 than they saved.”

“Despite claims to the contrary, CBO data show that the combined fiscal effect of the laws enacted by the 104th and 105th Republican Congresses is to add $11,000,000,000 more to the deficit than it cut in Fiscal Year 1998.

Clearly the CBO numbers confirm that the major credit for creating the 1998 surplus must go to actions of the 103rd Democratic Congress, which not only produced real net savings of $141 billion, but created the conditions necessary to adopt pro-growth monetary policies that have been very successful. The centerpiece of this effort, the deficit reduction bill passed in 1993, was described as follows by Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan: `There’s no question that the impact of bringing the deficit down [through the 1993 budget bill] set in place a series of events–a virtuous cycle, if I may put it that way–which has led us to where we are.’ (In testimony before the House Budget Committee, March 4, 1998.)

The facts show that the 1998 budget is balanced despite Republican legislative efforts, not because of them.”

Of course, we’ve been over & over & over this issue many, many times before, and the trolls will never learn, period.

“I will concede that Clinton raised taxes, I do not concede that this was the reason for balanced budgets and a good economy”

…because actual FACTS mean nothing to a troll, period.

“In 1996 Bill Clinton said ‘the era of big government is over’. In his first term Clinton’s average spending as a percentage of GDP was 21.1%.I don’t have figures for his second term but, it continued to fall. Also during his first 3 and 1/2 years Clinton cut 150,000 federal workers from Uncle Sam’s payroll. I contend that Clinton’s success was keeping the federal governments intrusion in to the economy limited.”

Ugh, let’s review the actual FACTS of the matter. U.S. Government Spending as a percentage of GDP went DOWN throughout Clinton’s entire term, and went UP pretty much throughout GWB’s entire term. The difference?? Not control of Congress, since the GOP pretty much had almost total control from 1994-2006. The difference was in the policies of the President that was in power, period.

“But where did that increase come from? Three words: defense, Medicare, Medicaid. That’s the whole story. Defense up from 3 to 4% of GDP; Medicare and Medicaid up from 3.4% to 4.6%, partially offset by increased payments for Part B and stuff.”

Mr. Guy, I sent you an e-mail yesterday regarding copyright concerns about reprinting large excerpts from an article published elsewhere. Please check your Inbox and Spam folder. If you don’t find an e-mail from me, please contact me at notyourdaddy@live.com. (Otherwise, I may have to edit or remove this post.)

I disagree with your concerns NYD. The massive amount of the quotes from this post below came from a U.S. govt. website (see below), where there are no copyright concerns. The other small quotation is only one, small paragraph from a NY Times blog.

I was merely pointing out that coming up with a cool nickname for someone you hate that is _completely_ devoid of any cleverness at all is actually quite the achievement. (Hey, I wonder if that makes you an “achiever.” You just may have killed two birds with one stone.)

Seriously, though. It’s easy to spout off a fact. I have no reason to doubt you or that you read said fact in your trusty magazine. But since I don’t have access to said magazine, that’s pretty much a moot point, isn’t it? As the person making the claim, I think it is incumbent on you. I’m not about to run around doing the leg work to prove your points.

Give me a fact with a verifiable source and I’ll be happy to consider it.

The % of Federal spending of GDP is measured different ways. When I was looking up the figures, I had different sources giving different figures for the same time period. Some included SS and Medicare, some did not. My point was comparing the % of GDP spending by the Federal Government during Clinton’s terms verses Obama’s, in order to disprove your theory that the tax increases of Clinton were responsible for economic growth.

I now intend to split hairs or at least your’s. “Not control of Congress, since the GOP pretty much had almost total control from 1994-2006.” This is NOT TRUE. Total control is what your heroes have now. Republicans only wish they had the control you guys have now.

LOOK up the Senate numbers from 2000 to 2006 and tell me what you find. Also the House majority of Republicans went down after 2000. My point is valid. The surpluses and the lower deficits WERE during the times when the MOST REPUBLICANS were in the two houses of Congress.

“Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan: `There’s no question that the impact of bringing the deficit down [through the 1993 budget bill] set in place a series of events–a virtuous cycle, if I may put it that way–which has led us to where we are.’ (In testimony before the House Budget Committee, March 4, 1998.)

The facts show that the 1998 budget is balanced despite Republican legislative efforts, not because of them.””

You should work in the Obama propaganda department. The Republicans controlled Congress from 95 through 2000, which coincidentally were the best years. Whatever Democrats did in 1993 LOGICALLY could not have meant as much as what Republicans did from 95-2000. Next time just tell me how your guys did when they were actually there.

The budgets began deteriorating between 2000 and 2006 because Republicans had a lower majority in the House. Democrats could block much of Bush’s policies. The Senate was much worse. It was almost even, with the advantage changing with the mood swings of a couple of Senators not remembering which party they were in.

In 2007 the budgets and economy really went south as the % of Democrats went north.

That site you mentioned contradicts information that I have from every other source. It does not even agree with what I have for the Clinton years. My guess is that we are arguing apples and oranges. That the methods of calculation are different.

“With yesterday’s fiscal 2010 budget proposal, President Obama is attempting not merely to expand the role of the federal government but to put it in such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back.”

“As the nearby chart shows, federal outlays will soar in fiscal 2009 to $4 trillion, or 27.7% of GDP, from $3 trillion or 21% of GDP in 2008, and 20% in 2007.”

No more troll feeding…lol… Especially when the troll’s OWN sources clearly show that federal outlays as a % of GDP went consistently DOWN under Clinton & UP under GWB, AND that federal outlays as a % of GDP will be going DOWN again starting with Obama’s first budget…LMAO!!

I will write slowly. We were arguing about the differences between Obama and Clinton. I did not argue that Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was lower under Bush. I did argue that budgets were better under Republican Congresses verses Democratic ones.

My original point was that Clinton’s success was due to controlling spending overall. I compared percentage of GDP that Federal spending was under Clinton to the projected spending under Obama.

If you cared about the truth as much as you do about patting your self on the back,,, well that won’t happen will it?

MG is all about winning. It’s frustrating to argue with him because he believes that winning on a peripheral point automatically validates every argument he’s made.

Republicans were 110% in charge during the Bush years, so therefore Democrats are completely blameless. He totally ignores the videos posted on this site showing how Democrats blocked efforts to rein in Fannie and Freddie. He totally ignores how Democrats blocked Bush’s energy policies.

Everything that went right during Clinton’s terms was due to tax increases on the rich. I failed to convince him of the other factors involved.

That’s why we call him Comrade Guy. He can’t even laugh at himself. I would laugh at him calling me a troll, if I could find a kernel of truth in the joke. My skin is quite thick, his insults are nothing, it’s his logic that I can’t stand.

Comrade Guy employs no logic. He spews his opinion like it is some conclusive, non-negotiable fact. There have been at least three separate occasions where he argued a point form evidence WE provided in which he actually validated OUR point, and in the same rant, attempted to argue we proved his! I have debated many people, both online and face to face, I have never come across anyone as silly as him. I think he was the kid that got beat up everyday in school, and the internet provides him a secure, secluded, place (probably in his mom’s basement) where he can “get back” at everyone that kicked his ass. I actually pity the poor socialist.

“There have been at least three separate occasions where he argued a point form evidence WE provided in which he actually validated OUR point, and in the same rant, attempted to argue we proved his!”

Nonsense, we’re all still waiting for the McSame “landslide” that you predicted a while back “DJ”. You woudn’t know a winning argument if one smacked you in head…

“I think he was the kid that got beat up everyday in school, and the internet provides him a secure, secluded, place (probably in his mom’s basement)”

Keep dreaming wing-nut…

On June 23, 2009 at 3:58 pm Alan Scott said:

DJ,

“I think he was the kid that got beat up everyday in school, and the internet provides him a secure, secluded, place (probably in his mom’s basement) where he can “get back” at everyone that kicked his ass. I actually pity the poor socialist.”

:) :)

Not quite the quiet, self reliant, rugged individualist guy. Well now the M.Guy rules the roost through Obama. Folks like you and me are finally going to get what’s coming to us. I’m already budgeting for the extra taxes to pay for his solar roof, his windmill, his plug in hybrid, and his FREE healthcare. I guess us taxpayers are his daddy.

Comrade Guy’s attempts at insult are as sad as his inability to debate. When he resorts to name calling, I know he no longer as anything valid to offer.

My wife and I are now debt free (expect for our house), I am amazed at the number of people who think we are part of the economic problem because we don’t spend all of our disposable income.

One of the guys I work with is a big Obamaite, when I asked him how much he wanted form me, he responded with “whatever it takes to make us even. When I asked him to explain what he meant, he said ” when I have a house as big as yours, a boat like you have and the same number of vehicles, then you can stop giving”.

Friday I asked him how much of his earnings is he willing to give away for BHO’s single payer health care plan, he responded with “nothing, people like you and your wife who have two incomes can pay for those of us with only one income (mind you, he is single, never married, no kids), because that is fair”.

I find it hard to believe that people that think like that are capable of breathing on their own.

“When he resorts to name calling, I know he no longer as anything valid to offer.”

You’re projecting again “DJ”…lol…

“I am amazed at the number of people who think we are part of the economic problem because we don’t spend all of our disposable income.”

Who’s ever advocated for that??

“Friday I asked him how much of his earnings is he willing to give away for BHO’s single payer health care plan, he responded with ‘nothing, people like you and your wife who have two incomes can pay for those of us with only one income (mind you, he is single, never married, no kids), because that is fair’.”

LOL…once again, Obama is NOT advocating *or* proposing a single-payer health care plan. Also, basing tax rates on one’s ability to pay is only “controversial” on the extreme Right-wing.

On June 24, 2009 at 11:01 am Wigglesworth said:

Friday I asked him how much of his earnings is he willing to give away for BHO’s single payer health care plan…

Your co-worker may not know the answer to that question, but I do. It’s what I’ve always said. Two pennies on every dollar for every American. That is what I think it would take.

Seriously? As I posted before, we are alredy paying approxiamtely 17 cents of every dollar. Do you really believe the single payer plan BHO is promoting is going to cost 7 times LESS than it does now? Have you seen the CBO projections? we are currently paying BILLIONS, the CBO projects BHO’s single payer plan will cost TRILLONS. Please explain how a Trillon is less than Billions.

Also, earlier in this thread, I asked you a couple of questions, I am still awaiting answers, would you be so kind as to provide them;

1) Why am I responsible for improving your lifestyle?

2)What entilies you (or anyone for that matter) to one cent of what I have earned?

“I would like to ask you, how is BHO’s single payer plan different from any other single payer plan?”

Jimminy Xmas, you’re dense “DJ”!! A single-payer health care plan is a term used to describe the payment of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers from a SINGLE FUND, which is almost always the government. Where is the SINGLE FUND in Obama’s health care plan that will cover ALL Americans?? Hint: It doesn’t exist…

On June 24, 2009 at 4:14 pm Alan Scott said:

DJ,
“he responded with “nothing, people like you and your wife who have two incomes can pay for those of us with only one income (mind you, he is single, never married, no kids), because that is fair”.”

I’m sure the man was raised by idiots and with any luck he will be the last branch of his family tree.

I have worked with a hundred like that. I’m even related to some. If you live on less than you make and get ahead, you are a target for class envy. I’m betting the man saves nothing for a rainy day and then has to borrow umbrellas.

One comeback you could say to your co worker is that single people SHOULD pay more than families with kids because its the fair thing to do. That one used to frost me when I was single.

LOL, I wish I had thought of that…I am sure the conversation will come up again. He has been busy writing (e-mailing)to his Congresswoman, and our Senators BEGGING them to vote for BHO’s single payer plan, luckily, I can match him e-mail for e-mail;)

“Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that “everyone guessed wrong” on the impact of the economic stimulus”

Hey guys, MG, WW, how are you going to spin it when the health care bill raises health care costs and degrades service? How are going to spin it when the Obama energy bill raises energy costs through out the economy? Will you admit that you guessed wrong when you voted Obama-Biden? What are your standards for measuring the success of your heroes? Do you have standards?

“I am noticing that no one seems to be able to tell you what the difference is between a single payer plan, Canadian plan, UK plan, and the Obama plan.”

That’s because there is NO DIFFERENCE! They know it, but can’t admit it, to do so would be accepting “The Messiah” Presidency is nothing more than Jimmy Carters second term (with slightly different actors but the same incompetence this time). They are both weak on National defense, Foreign Policy, and Economic theory. Neither can speak without significant help. Both hate Israel (and America for that matter), and they seem to love foreign oil.
Their domestic policy is only slightly better than FDR (followed closely by Hoover and Teddy Roosevelt).

I find it rather humorous that the the current housing fiasco can be tied directly to all three living Democrat Presidents; JC crafted the CRA, Slick Willy expanded it and BHO (with ACORN) ensured people who couldn’t afford home loans got them! To make matters even more laughable, Barney Frank is now trying to force banks to loan money to people who STILL can’t afford it, and BHO isn’t even trying to slow him down!

…for those that *don’t know how to read* the simple defintion of a single-payer health care system that’s been posted here for all to see. Obama is NOT in favor of getting rid of private health care insurance, period. I wish that he was!

“Both hate Israel (and America for that matter), and they seem to love foreign oil.”

When has Obama spoken out against Israel?? When has Obama OR Carter spoken out in favor of continuing our over-dependence on oil?? Oh yea, it was never…

“I find it rather humorous that the the current housing fiasco can be tied directly to all three living Democrat Presidents; JC crafted the CRA, Slick Willy expanded it and BHO (with ACORN) ensured people who couldn’t afford home loans got them! To make matters even more laughable, Barney Frank is now trying to force banks to loan money to people who STILL can’t afford it”

What I truly find hilarious is that there are still those on the far Right-wing fringe that actually believe that any of what they spout about the “reasons” why the recent economic collapse happened is actually true, when it flies in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. They are truly blinded by ideology…just like always…

On June 27, 2009 at 6:13 pm Alan Scott said:

Another good article on the Democrat’s “Paygo” slight of hand.

Democrats promised to abide by “Paygo” rules if they took the House in 2006.

” By 2008, Speaker Pelosi had let those rules lapse no fewer than 12 times, to make way for $400 billion in deficit spending”

This is why “Paygo” in 2009 is as useless as budget rules that the Democratic Congress passed in 1993. Which as the article points out, MG, had nothing to do do with the budget surpluses under President Clinton.

From your link, “Tougher lending standards will merely shift market share from one government program to another, so what’s the point in being cautious?”

Comrade Guy has stressed numerous times that Republican deregulation led to the housing market crash, now that there are NO republicans involved, and there is a push to continue the same failed policies of the Democrat controlled House and Senate, when will he man-up and admit he was (a) WRONG, and (b) that deregulation had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the housing market crash and that GOVERNMENT MEDDLING (read OVER REGULATION) did?

“Comrade Guy has stressed numerous times that Republican deregulation led to the housing market crash”

…which is simply the case, as clearly proven by an overwhelming amount of *hard facts*.

“there is a push to continue the same failed policies of the Democrat controlled House and Senate”

Like what??

As for “manning-up and admitting that one was WRONG”, we’re still waiting for YOU “DJ” to admit a whole lot of things, that your nonsense about the “causes” of recent economic meltdown is total bunk, that McSame will NOT be winning in a landslide in 2008, etc., etc., etc….I’m not holding my breath either…

BTW, trying to pass off Right-wing opinion pieces from the WSJ as “fact” is NEVER a winning strategy…lol…

For instance:

“As a share of GDP, spending will hit an astonishing 28.5% in fiscal 2009”

…which was a budget proposed by GWB, NOT Obama! Oh, federal spending as a percentage of GDP will be going DOWN in FY2010 under Obama’s budget, but we’ve already been over that at length…lol…

“In fact, that brief era of balanced budgets was due to: mid-decade spending reductions by a GOP Congress elected on a balanced-budget pledge”

…tell that to the non-partisan CBO, which clearly said at the time that the GOP Congress actually DELAYED the implementation of a balanced budget with their nonsense.

“In the near term, paygo gives Mr. Obama another excuse to let the Bush tax cuts he dislikes expire after 2010”

…because they would have NEVER been implemented in the first place under pay-go, which was abolished by the GOP Congress at the time.

“The Reagan tax reductions would never have happened under paygo”

…which would have been a GREAT thing, since we wouldn’t have been burdened with a super-huge federal debt in the fist place!

You know that I love to argue DETAILS. Something that you wrote defies my understanding. Rather than get in to the usual insults, I humbly ask that you answer the following, after I set it up.

You wrote;

“BTW, trying to pass off Right-wing opinion pieces from the WSJ as “fact” is NEVER a winning strategy…lol…

For instance:

“As a share of GDP, spending will hit an astonishing 28.5% in fiscal 2009″

…which was a budget proposed by GWB, NOT Obama! ”

So correct me if I am wrong, but you blame President Bush for the Federal spending hitting 28.5% of GDP in fiscal 2009 because it was his proposed budget.

Yet President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill on February 18, 2009. Now unless the bulk of that stimulus bill is spent in succeeding years, how can President Obama not be held partially responsible?

If it is not to be spent in fiscal 2009, how can it be a stimulus, and how could it have been so urgent ?

What have any of you gained by being mean and rude? Don’t answer, I’ve come to my own conclusion.

I suggest a start over. There won’t always be agreement but it’s not logical to think a point is proved by catty remarks.

I also have a bet for ya. I bet you can go the rest of this discussion without talking about ‘your guy is worse then my guy’ or other such foolishness. Why can’t we be more, it’s all of us against all of them?

From what’s been posted upstream I’d say we all have a lot to learn. Now, go to your rooms and don’t come out until you can play nice!

I said cube jockeys in WASHINGTON. Health insurance companies are a separate conversation. I have ALWAYS advocated individual responsibility for heath care, if you CHOOSE to have insurance, get it. If you CHOOSE not to get insurance, don’t.

Regarding Health insurance companies, you, as a consumer have the choice of which company to purchase your insurance from, with the Gub’mint you are stuck with what they GIVE you.

“Regarding Health insurance companies, you, as a consumer have the choice of which company to purchase your insurance from”

So, we have a “choice” as to which company will rip us off & deny us the care that our health care providers say that we need in the first place…niiiice…

On July 1, 2009 at 5:21 pm Alan Scott said:

DJ,

Wigglesworth has some logic on his side. Whether the cube jockey works for the government or an insurance company, his first priority is controlling costs, not getting the best care for the patient. Wigglesworth perhaps has good reason to hate private insurance. You and I have good reason to hate public insurance. Your final point is well taken, that the gov. nerd can never be fired, while the free enterprise nerd can. Now you can go in to another plan or change jobs that have a better plan.

I’ll tell you what Wigglesworth, if Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, and Frank commit to using the same plan that us peasants are being forced to use, I might sign on. Now that the House has fixed Global Warming, I guess Hell really could freeze over.

The beauty of CHOICE is; if you BELEIVE you are getting screwed, you can CHOOSE another company. If you actually do get screwed, you have an option for redress (the court system).

Look at the cell phone market, the free market choices available to you are quite numerous, if Alltel “screws you” you can move to Verizon, or AT&T, or any other cell service provider- no government involvement required. Same thing will happen if government gets out of healthcare YOU will have more choices and options than you can imagine.

Lets not overlook one of the most important advantages of allowing the market to work freely; cost WILL GO DOWN. Again, look no further than phone service. When AT&T wss a government allowed monopoly, you had little choice in the type or style of phone you could have ikn your home or office, you were not allowed to hook up answering machines to it, or any other “foreign device”, after the breakup, there were many startup phone service providers, the chopice of services you could pick from grew, the price of local AND long distance droped significantly, call quality went up, wireless phones were introduced, as well as the aforementioned cell phones. LEft alone, a FREE Market provides better service, better quality, and better customer care-it has to, because YOU are the customer, if they want your money, they have meet your needs.

As much as I enjoy debating with you Wigglesworth, your current tend of responding with little to no factual basis is getting as irritating as Comrade Guys inabilty to craft to an argument not fed to him by the DNC.

“The beauty of CHOICE is; if you BELEIVE you are getting screwed, you can CHOOSE another company”

…and get screwed by them instead.

“If you actually do get screwed, you have an option for redress (the court system).”

Really?? Since when do people successfully sue health care insurance companies because they deny care that is really needed??

“no government involvement required.”

As IF there are NO govt. rules that cover the cell phone industry…please…

“Lets not overlook one of the most important advantages of allowing the market to work freely; cost WILL GO DOWN. Again, look no further than phone service.”

Really?? Phone service prices have gone DOWN since the so-called “government allowed monopoly” of AT&T?? Tell that to my phone bill…

“your current tend of responding with little to no factual basis”

…which is EXACTLY what “DJ” does. When was the last time that he ever backed up *anything* that he’s said with an actual link to actual data??

On July 2, 2009 at 3:21 pm Alan Scott said:

DJ,

Wigglesworth seems to be against free enterprise on a personal level. He’s obviously been screwed by some companies and so projects his hostility against them all. Obviously intelligent in the practical world, but not a theorist. Your free market telephone example while true, is still a theoretical argument that I doubt WW cares about. In the coming years, I think he will only be persuaded when he personally experiences Obama’s failures.

Mister Guy seems to be the reverse. I doubt he has any real world smarts at all. Everything is intellectual theory to him. He’d be a good lawyer. The practical failures of his beliefs don’t matter, he will just twist the truth to make reality fit his conclusions. I’m still waiting to see the mental gymnastics he uses to answer my question about the 09 budget. It seems like I’ll wait a long time.

As far I know, I’ve never revealed my gender and I’ve only spoken about my “spouse.” I could be wrong about that, though.

I appreciate the attempt to pigeon-hole me. I assume it was meant in a sincere way.

Like I’ve said before, just because someone says something doesn’t mean it is so. People can be wrong. Systems can be wrong. (And by “wrong” in this context I mean producing conclusions or outcomes that were not imagined or desired.)

A very simple example of this is: The best way to stimulate the economy is by cutting taxes on the rich. This is spoken as a truth, but yet the jury is hardly out on that one. There are about a million ways to look at something that complex.

Time for comments that are blasts from the past. Repetition time. I’m not a communist or socialist. I believe all human systems are flawed. Probably the best possible system is one that takes good elements from several, including capitalism and free market theory. But due to the nature of humans, systems that sound good in theory can end up being destructive, and unfair to the point of being immoral.

I have reasons I think the way I do, and I apologize if I’m unwilling to spend the time necessary to back them up every time I post. But I still reserve the right to call “bullshiat” any time I feel it is due.

FDR went regulation and spend crazy and extended the Great depression for years, BHO is doing the samethings, remember his quote in favor of the stimulous bill? Passing it would not allow unemployment to exceed 8 percent? Well, it passed, and we are at 9.5 percent and climbing. Take a look at the numbers for for the Cap and Trade bill, not one single source (outside BHO, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman and Markey) can show overall job growth with this bill, they all show overall job loss. The Waxman-Markey bill is based on Spains bill, the unemployment rate in Spain zoomed to 18 percent after they implemented their “go green” laws. The same thing is going to happen here.

I enjoy (most) of your posts, but basing your economic beliefs on what “feels good” is a disatorous plan. History supports it.

I hope you and yours have a festive and joyous Independence day celebration.

LOL…Reagan cut taxes before he *raised* them again, of course, due to the massive ballooning of the federal deficit. Clinton presided over the *longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history*, which included a balanced budget & a federal surplus.

By 2003, after the second round of Bush tax cuts for mostly the rich, job growth had remained stagnant. Under the Bush Regime, real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%, which was considerably below the average for business cycles from 1949 to 2000. Adjusted for inflation, median household income dropped by $1,175 between 2000 & 2007. In December 2007, the USA entered the longest post-World War II recession, which included a housing market correction, a subprime mortgage crisis, soaring oil prices, and a declining dollar value.

“FDR went regulation and spend crazy and extended the Great depression for years”

Utter, Right-wing nonsense, which has been dedunked almost everywhere by now.

“Passing it would not allow unemployment to exceed 8 percent?”

Obama NEVER said that, period.

On July 3, 2009 at 3:53 pm Wigglesworth said:

Hey, thanks for the nice message.

Bush II? Do you mean George W. Bush? If so, I’m hardly ready to stipulate to the statement that the economy “boomed” following Bush’s tax cuts! For some strange reason, even though some like to say it is all Obama’s fault, I seem to remember it starting up to a few years ago. I think the point you are trying to make would be a LOT more solid if the economy went in the bidet effective January 20, 2009.

I don’t base my opinions on what feels good. More than anything, for me personally, the guiding star is logic. I’m a big fan of that. In my opinion, that means using facts to get at truth in order to reach conclusions. I’m also a sociology hobbyist which is where I learned some other important concepts that have had an effect on how I formulate my opinions.

It could be argued that, what with what the housing crisis did to the economy (bringing it down) that that same false housing market made the boom.
If I remember right after the 2001 recession, Bush came out and declared what was it? Oh yeah a jobless recovery.
After all a lot of those loans were refinace or second mortgages. Not to mention those that got loans for 120% or more and then spent (stimulated the economy) that money. Either way it was FAKE. false. faux however you want to say it.
I also would like to know how much of an effect the credit card industry had on the economy throwing out credit to everyone and their pet. In some ways I feel (sorry , I shouldn’t talk about those when commenting on financial matters ) have somewhat of a notion that the credit propped the economy for some time too.
As for the economy faltering under Clinton I am not quite sure as to what you are referring to. I seem to remember business booming relativley well during the 90’s. He was not my favorite guy, but I don’t feel (there I go with those feelings again, please forgive me) he did all that bad.
However, I do remember shortly after I voted for Bush the auto industry damn near collapsed. The industrial parks were like ghost towns.
Any way I have company, I wish all of you a happy INDEPENDANCE DAY!

“The boom began to peter out in 2000. Manufacturing output began to decline in August and industrial production in October. By the end of January 2001, just as Clinton left office, 217,000 manufacturing jobs had already been lost. Before George W. Bush’s economic program became law, manufacturing job losses reached 652,000.

This handoff to Bush of a declining economy provides Clinton some of his best anti-Bush talking points, on jobs, the deficit, the poverty rate, and health insurance. (Although the insurance picture is driven by factors other than the economy, a weak economy will boost the ranks of the uninsured.) There was something symbolically perfect about Clinton’s touting economic growth that was going bust, and leaving someone else with the consequences. Clinton’s presidency had achieved a sort of symmetry. He took office overselling a slowdown, and left office overselling a boom.

Bill Clinton saw the most new jobs ever created under a single Administration…that’s more than 22.5 million new jobs in less than 8 years, and that’s more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92%, were in the private sector. The Clinton Administration saw 1.4 Million more jobs due to exports between 1994 & 1998, with jobs supported by exports paying about 13-16% above the U.S. national average.

The FY 2000 surplus was $237 billion, and the Clinton Administration saw the largest 3-year debt pay-down ever. Between 1998-2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion. The Clinton Administration saw lower federal govt. spending as a share of the economy-from 22.2% percent in 1992 to 18% percent in 2000, which was the lowest level since 1966. Because of Clinton’s fiscal discipline and deficit & debt reduction, it was estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments.

Under Clinton, 7 million fewer Americans were living in poverty, since the poverty rate declined from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.8% near the end of his term, which was the largest 6-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. The child poverty rate declined under Clinton more than 25%, the poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever, the African American & elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record, and the Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979. Clinton saw the lowest poverty rate for single mothers on record. Under Clinton, the poverty rate for families with single mothers fell from 46.1% in 1993 to 35.7% in 1999.

“Without the restraint of Congress, it’s not clear Clinton’s policies would have reduced the deficit at all.”

Boy I shut off my computer to go camping and look at the postings. I knew MG wouldn’t have the guts to answer me, but if he had read just some of what I’ve written, he would not have posted “Obama NEVER said that, period.””

Besides what you’ve answered him with, I posted on this board on 6/27/09 a link to Biden saying everyone got the economy wrong, with references to the current administration saying that if the stimulus was passed the unemployment rate would not top 8%.

MG either does not answer inconvenient facts or does a BHO and tries to bury you with irrelevant details.

“He never responds to facts, all he does is whine that the source is “right-wing” it is the typical “I-cant-win-the-argument-so-I’ll-just pooh-pooh-the-source” tactic.”

I was researching Keith Olbermann and I found a common methodology between him, MG, and President Obama. A way of obscuring truth using complex logic. I knew there had to be a term for it. It’s called Chomskyism and is named for Noam Chomsky. For background.

Great article! I see what you mean! Excellent reference, I have take the liberty to simply your argument…

[Comrade Guy] frequently presents as established history what in fact is propaganda or sheer fabrication (¶6).

“…one discovers that “the copious references are there to create a kind of pseudo-academic smog; many of them are repetitive, and many more are so vague as to be useless” (¶6).

[Comrade Guy] dismisses or attacks the integrity of sources that contradict his interpretation of an event, and then relies on obscure or nakedly biased sources to create the illusion of empirical evidence supporting his position (¶10).

Yet no matter how much evidence refutes [Comrade Guy’s] analyses and predictions, he stubbornly holds on to them or refuses to admit he was wrong, just like the medieval theologians whose motto was “Defend, never emend.” (¶12)

Rather than evidence-based analysis, then, [Comrade Guy’s] political writings reflect his ideological obsessions, specifically, his irrational hatred of the very country that has given him a life of prosperity and the freedom not just to bite the hand that feeds him, but to gain profit and prestige from doing so. Lurking within this hatred is the disdain for the American people, which is characteristic of most “progressives” who, for all their populist rhetoric, simply can’t stand the average person (¶14).

Passionately committed to a discredited and destructive political creed, socialism, [Comrade Guy] must hate the one society whose commitment to the freedom of the individual has done more than any other to disprove the claims of so-called “progressives” to improve human life by bestowing power to elites (¶18)

On July 8, 2009 at 4:11 am Mister Guy said:

“Like I said, he can’t win the argument so he attacks the source…LOL, what a pity it must be to be him!”

Wow, you really ARE dense “DJ”. I rebutted the entirely of that baloney opinion post from your Right-wing buddy Lowry. Try learning to read for comprehension sometime…ugh…

On July 6, 2009 at 9:09 pm Mister Guy said:

“He never responds to facts, all he does is whine that the source is ‘right-wing'”

LOL…facts?? You wouldn’t know a verified, unbiased fact if one hit you in the head “DJ”…give it up… You live in a warped world where every Right-wing opinion piece spews “the truth”, to the exclusion of everything else, period.

I wasn’t sure where to post this , but seeing as how everyone posts here I thought you all would like this.http://www.livescience.com/environment/080505-dust-bowl.html
Now DJ, are you saying that Clinton left Bush a recession? Isn’t that totally contrarian to what the left is saying about Bush leaving Obama a recession?
That double talk is exactly why I can no longer stand either one. They both run this country into the ground, keep the people tied up arguing over their lies so that the attention is off the larger subjects.
Conservatives want to blame over regulation and groups like acorn and Barney Frank,Chris Dodd and Charlie Rangel. Your right…. to a point.
Liberals want to blame deregulation, Phil Grahm and the banks. They are right to a point. Maybe more so than the conservatives at least in my opinion.
The way I see it our legislators ARE THE PROBLEM!!! They have been bought by the banks.
How do you ask? First, congress has the means and authority to print the nations money does it not? Then why do we pay interest to the federal reserve to print money? By the way, the FED is a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. There are only 2 or 3 appointed seats.
Here is a quote from John K Galbraith Historion in reference to the debt after the civil war:
In numerous years after the war the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not however payoff it’s debt or retire it’s securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the National Bank Notes. To pay off the debt would destroy the money supply.
Ask yourselves who profitted from this whole fiasco. OOOhh you cry the banks lost lots of money, thats why they had to have bailouts. B

I don’t think anyone saying Bush left Obama a recession is contrarian. I think that is the truth. I would add that the House and Senate have more control over the condition of the economy than the President does.

Regardless, my point is not about who caused the recession, it is about cutting taxes to stimulate growth. Every time taxes are cut the economy flourishes. Wigglesworth seems to believe the jury is still out on that, I tend to disagree and provided events which support my position, in several places on this blog I have posted the evidence. It is not hard to find, and it is quite clear.

I think the disconnect is on the other side of the coin-spending. Both parties like to spend, the more they get, the more they spend. When the economy contracts, like it must, our Congress never reigns in spending. Then, we the people get screwed. Simple fix, quit spending, they won’t.

I am still not sure on your tax cut philosophy only because there are plenty of tax shelters out there and I am quite sure they are being used to their full extent. Also, the tax rates being spewed all over as being higher than most countries is before deductions and write-offs.
I agree 110% on the over spending by gov’ts both state and feds. Tuco said something about bringing back debtors prisons. If they were for government officials, I might have to get in line to support that one. Also I don’t have a credit card never have.

If I can’t buy it, I don’t need it.

On July 8, 2009 at 4:35 am Mister Guy said:

“I would add that the House and Senate have more control over the condition of the economy than the President does.”

No, it doesn’t.

“it is about cutting taxes to stimulate growth”

…which is simply a FAILED CONCEPT, period end of story.

On July 8, 2009 at 4:34 am Mister Guy said:

“Isn’t that totally contrarian to what the left is saying about Bush leaving Obama a recession?”

Of course it is!

“First, congress has the means and authority to print the nations money does it not? Then why do we pay interest to the federal reserve to print money?”

We don’t. The U.S. govt. prints money & mints coins, and the Fed then buys them from the federal govt. for the cost of their production, which is something like 3-5 cents/bill (I’m not sure about the coins).

“By the way, the FED is a PRIVATE INSTITUTION.”

No, it’s a partially private institution that exists only through the power of the laws that were passed (and amended over time) by Congress, and the President appoints the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C., which comprise 7 members serving staggered 14-year terms…as confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The Fed does NOT operate for the purpose of making a profit. Congressional oversight & statutes, which can alter the Fed’s responsibilities & control, allow the govt. to keep the Federal Reserve System in check to a certain extent.

“Here is a quote from John K Galbraith Historion in reference to the debt after the civil war:
In numerous years after the war the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not however payoff it’s debt or retire it’s securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the National Bank Notes. To pay off the debt would destroy the money supply.
Ask yourselves who profitted from this whole fiasco.”

The national federal debt fell from the last year of the Civil War (at almost $2.68 billion) to around $1.15 billion for a number of years. After the Civil War, the USA apparently ran surpluses for something like 28 straight years.

BULL PUCKEY!!!! What happened to all the profits from the years of the realestate boom? And for their losses, didn’t they have those hedged? Insured? Oh insurance! Didn’t the taxpayer have to bail out one of those too? Oh yeah! The very Insurance company that those banks had their policies with! Come on that has to be a coincidece, doesn’t it? Face it, the only people that lost in those comapanies was the share holder and they deserved to lose it all. They kept the people in power in those companies that promoted the very growth that they were craving.
The banks ARE THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTORS TO BOTH PARTIES !!!!! They have bought our legislators. After all if the perks someone paid you were more than the salery you were getting paid would’t you work for the guy paying your perks?
I read on yahoo the other day that the credit card companies were now taking people with good credit scores and cutting their maximum credit. The net effect was that they cut your available credit which in turn puts the percentage of your outstanding balance out of whack. Now, since instead of having 55% of your available credit out , you now have 80-90% of your balance out. Guess what that means? You now qualify for an IMMEDIATE rate hike to 29%.
You see now that they have sucked all they could from the poor pipples , they are coming after the rest of the people.
Also if Rush Limabaugh stands for all that is conservative why does he refer to himself as a benevolent DICTATOR???

I agree with you regarding the banks and the fed. I never carry a balance on my credit card (yes singular). So I really am not affected by the interest rate. I do agree with you that the plan you listed is nothing more than a scam. Had Congress not stuck its fingers into the credit card rice bowl, we would not have that legislation-again evidence that “feel good” legislation screws the producers.

Regarding Rush, I am usually working while his show is on. I have never heard him refer to himself as a “benevolent dictator”… “a harmless little fuzz ball”, I have heard, but not “benevolent dictator”.

Yeah 6 of the top 13 are banks or bank related. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is almost 50%.
By far the most generous sector. Then if you throw in their lobbyists who speak for them (they along with lawyers comprised #1)They would be first.

You are correct that the board members are appointed. But who appoints them? The same cooked politicians that let them sell out the economy for their own personal gain.

They allow these people to write the laws themselves, whether it’s banking, Medicare or whatever.

On July 7, 2009 at 1:11 pm scoobie jim said:

Also, lest we forget the 8 to 10 TRILLION DOLLARS the FEDERAL RESERVE and THE TREASURY gave to the banks through the discount windows and 0 or near 0% interest. Anyone know a bank that would give me that kind of rate? Not to mention what they have done to pension garuntee fund and the FDIC fund. It is in fact utterly disgusting.

Forgive me for switching gears. The name of this board is “Entitlement, Dependency, Control”. This is to move the discussion back to basics.

I believe that government should do a few things and try to do them well. When we ask our local, State, and Federal governments to do too much, we get lobbying, high taxes, bad service,lies, and “Entitlement, Dependency, Control”.

I have used California before as an example of the massive failure of Socialism, Big Government, or what ever you want to call it.

Here is the latest. The big banks are going to refuse California IOUs.

I’m naming a few things a State which can’t pay it’s bills probably should not have spent the taxpayers money on.

$3billion in bonds to fund stem cell research, $2.167 billion over 10 years for Solar Initiative.

Since the Democratic Party owns the banks, I’m sure a Pelosi call can get them to carry a deadbeat State for awhile longer. After all a triple B rating is 2 steps above junk bond and much better than those they lent to during the housing bubble.

Allan, I would say that the topic i was typing on was exactly what the title of this post is. The banks are entitled, they are dependant on govt or is it that gov’t is dependant on them?
Ask yourself who made the terms for the financial bailout. Stankey Hankey got a LARGE check with NO STRINGS ATTATCHED ! From the FED again a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. So it seems to me that the gov’t( at least the people we voted for) are dependant on the banks therefore the banks are in control.
The auto companies had no where near the terms those financiers had. In fact, they didn’t even have to fly to washington and grovel, and then be ridiculed for flying their private jets. They simply cried to Stanky Hankey and he and Bernanke bent over backwards to comply.

“‘DJ’ frequently presents as established history what in fact is propaganda or sheer fabrication (¶6).

‘DJ’ relies on obscure or nakedly biased sources to create the illusion of empirical evidence supporting his position (¶10).

Yet no matter how much evidence refutes ‘DJ’s’ analyses and predictions, he stubbornly holds on to them or refuses to admit he was wrong, just like the medieval theologians whose motto was ‘Defend, never emend.’ (¶12)

Rather than evidence-based analysis, then, ‘DJ’s’ political writings reflect his ideological obsessions (¶14).

As far as Rush Limbaugh calling himself a benevolent DICTATOR. That is a self mocking term. There are many such jokes, which if you don’t like Limbaugh, you won’t appreciate. He knows the power of his influence, it’s limitations, and does not suffer from false modesty. Either you get his humor or you don’t. His other jokes about himself, which could offend you are; “talent on loan from God” and ” half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair”.

On the Federal Reserve issue. I am not ready to go as far as you and DJ and say it should be abolished. I agree that there were things done that were not right. I believe that the FR had to pump money in to the banking system to keep the whole row of dominoes from going over.

I fault Bernanke and Greenspan for letting things get to the point where they had to save big institutions who did not deserve it.

You can go on and on about the Fed if you want to. The Fed is only one part of the whole puzzle. They deal with the messes caused by the politicians.

My example of California is more relevant. It represents an entire economy being run in to the ground by tax and spend policies and feel good green stupidity. It is the model of our future. It is where President Obama wants us to go.

I always ask our friends of the other side to show me where their stuff is working. California is where every foolish thing they believe in has been tried.

I would have to totally agree with you on Californias overspending. It seems to me that there is a serious epidemic that everyone seems to think they deserve the best of everything.

Good enough or wait until you can afford it as gone as far away as my Great Grandfather ( who lived those values not just talked them) has.

I don’t know enough about the fed to know if it should be abolished or not, I just feel it works more for the fallstreet felons that some how end up always being appointed to the posts and Treasury.

Also, what would happen to the economy if the fed tightened up the money supply during an economic crisis? I read an article saying that the fed squeezed 30% + out of the economy just before and during the depression.

That article you read is 100% correct! The FED had a major (if not singular) impact in causing the Great Depression,

“The Great Depression created a widespread misconception that market economies are inherently unstable and must be managed by the government to avoid large macreconomic fluctuations, that is, business cycles. This view persists to this day despite the more than 40 years since Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz showed convincingly that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies were largely to blame for the severity of the Great Depression. In 2002 Ben Bernanke (then a Federal Reserve governor, today the chairman of the Board of Governors) made this startling admission in a speech given in honor of Friedman’s 90th birthday: “I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry(¶2)”.
Retrieved from http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/

The article is a bit long, but does a great job of explaining what caused the Great Depression and debunks the entirety of the failed Keynesian economic theory.

On July 9, 2009 at 1:35 pm Mister Guy said:

“I would have to totally agree with you on Californias overspending. It seems to me that there is a serious epidemic that everyone seems to think they deserve the best of everything.”

Let’s review. A two-thirds vote is required to pass a CA budget, and in 2008, no political Party by itself had enough votes to pass a budget. Republicans refused to accept any tax increases. The original budget was put together by Democrats & some Republicans using spending cuts, internal borrowing, and accounting maneuvers because that’s all that they could get passed. In November 2008, the GOP Governator out there proposed & implemented many spending reductions.

On April 1, 2009, the CA state sales & use tax was *temporarily* increased by 1%, which is less than a drop in the bucket of their budget woes. The GOP Governator can’t get his own Party to agree to raising new revenue & raising new fees, which is one of the main reasons that they are in trouble out there. Also, their housing market was HUGE compared to the rest of the country, and they felt that pain a LOT harder than many other states.

…all over your head “DJ”. As per usual, you don’t know what it is that you are talking about & are completely blind to the true irony of your remarks. What a joke…lol…

“The article is a bit long, but does a great job of explaining what caused the Great Depression and debunks the entirety of the failed Keynesian economic theory.”

Yea, except for the *fact* that Uncle Milty is completely wrong about his assertion that the central bank failed to inflate the supply of money. The *fact* is that the Fed purchased $1.1 billion of govt. securities from February-July 1932, which raised its total holding to $1.8 billion. Total bank reserves, however, only rose by $212 million because the American populace lost faith in the banking system and began hoarding more cash, a factor very much beyond the control of the Central Bank. The potential for a run on the banks caused local bankers to be more conservative in lending out their reserves, and, this was the cause of the Fed’s inability to inflate.

Also, Uncle Milty concluded, “I don’t doubt for a moment that the collapse of the stock market in 1929 played a role in the initial recession”.

On July 9, 2009 at 1:19 pm Mister Guy said:

“Yeah 6 of the top 13 are banks or bank related. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is almost 50%”

We’re the ones who should be sad, yet we can laugh, even if it is at him. He should be tap dancing for joy now that Franken has made his side bullet proof. His daddy Obama can get him everything he always wanted for Christmas, and you and I, along with our great grandchildren are given the honor of picking up the check.

Democrats, love em or hate em are a fact of life. Especially now, the political tides are running with them. We poor free enterprise, neo-liberterians can only gripe from the sidelines and watch the socialist experiments of our current rulers play out.

Hope sometimes comes from unexpected sources. Sometimes a light bulb turns on above a Democrat. From an article in the WSJ, Saturday,6/11/09, by Joe Mathews, entitled “Democrats For a Flat Tax?”

Karen Ross the Democratic Speaker of the State Assembly of California has figured out that the ” Progressive” tax rates they use, cannot fund the ” Progressive” spending so near and dear to the hearts of a Rino Guvernor and Sacramento Democrats.

144,000 of the evil wealthy pay half the income taxes for 38 million citizens. Liberal class warfare at it’s best.

The flaw in this socialist model is that any sudden reversal of fortune to these rich, causes state revenues to sink. Many rich have also gotten tired of having their wealth confiscated by the Sacramento Politboro and flee the state.

Though Ms.Ross and some Democrats see the reality of moving to the right, they are being lobbied by those who feed from the public trough, AFSCME, to enact $44 billion of taxes on that part of the tax base which is already over taxed.

Allan, that is precisely why the concentration of wealth is the hands of a few is not good for either side.

I am not saying that the rich don’t earn their money or deserve to keep it. The problem is when the wealth is not trickling down to the pipples, they tend to get restless. The majority of the gains in the last few decades has gone to the wealthy and they cry that they need more. How much is enough? At what point do they stop deserving the money and start feeling entitled to it?

How is the economy (which by popular stats is 2/3 consumer driven) supposed to keep going if the wealthy have all the money?

Again please do not take this as me going against the producers. But those producers can not do all the work themselves. On another post DJ claimed that gas station attendants weren’t worth more than a couple of bucks an hour. Do you feel the same way about some of your fellow Americans? Do you want this country to start looking like China?

Again, this is NOT excusing California for it’s follies. They have very serious problems out there and Im afraid they will be suffering for that for along time. I live in Michigan, our state has been losing jobs for decades. Along with population and the pols don’t seem to want to take that into consideration when appropriating funds.

I can’t understand why our voters keep voting these incumbants into office. How do you change things when you keep the same crooks in office????

“On another post DJ claimed that gas station attendants weren’t worth more than a couple of bucks an hour.”

I never said that. My argument is the POSITION of gas station attendant does not warrant more than a few dollars an hour. The person filling the position is worth whatever they can convince someone to pay them. If a gas station attendant can convince a gas station manager to pay him 50 dollars an hour, so be it. The worth of the person should not be related to the job they fill-each person who wants to improve their position in life should. If they CHOOSE to work at a gas station making 3 bucks an hour, they have that right as well.

On July 14, 2009 at 3:02 pm Alan Scott said:

scoobie jim,

“Again please do not take this as me going against the producers. But those producers can not do all the work themselves.”

I do not place you in the same category as some others on this board. I respectfully disagree with some of your points.

“Allan, that is precisely why the concentration of wealth is the hands of a few is not good for either side.”

May I ask, just how you plan to remedy this? Let’s take an example of a small businessman, grossing $400,000 per year and working an 80 hour week. Maybe the guy has 50 people working for him. Maybe the guy wants to make $1,000,000 per year. Where do you think this guy would rather live? California where he is just a grape to be squeezed or Texas where they want him to get to that $1,000,000 per year and have one hundred people working for him?

You lump all wealthy people together, I don’t. I realize there are scum like Joseph Cassano.

Ran across this today, “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of the year the legislation becomes law“(¶3) (emphasis added) Retrieved from http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854

For all the doubters, here is the PROOF that BHO wants SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE. Just like he has said all along PERIOD.

2) “Listening to a 2003 Obama speech, it’s hard to believe he has become such an enigma. Back then, he declared himself “a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare program” — that is, one eliminating private insurers and their overhead costs by having government finance healthcare.” Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/05/16/sirota/

3) “’If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,’ Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.
A single-payer system would eliminate private insurance companies and put a Medicare-like system into place where the government pays all health-care bills with tax dollars.” Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/19/obama-touts-single-payer-system/

From your own links:
“If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System.”

The problem is…he’s NOT starting from scratch, which is a shame IMO.

Getting health insurance companies to slash $2 trillion in costs over the next 10 years is a great start.

“ABC’s 2003 poll showed almost two-thirds of Americans desiring a single-payer system “run by the government and financed by taxpayers,” just as CBS’s 2009 poll shows roughly the same percentage today.”

“Obama aides are trying to squelch any single-payer discussion, deploying their healthcare point-person, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., to announce that ‘everything is on the table with the single exception of single-payer.'”
—————————-
“I believe I recall you you supporting single (read government) payer health care, so this obviously makes you all tingly inside.”

It shouldn’t, since that’s NOT what Obama’s plan is about, period end of story.

On July 17, 2009 at 11:01 am Mister Guy said:

“For all the doubters, here is the PROOF that BHO wants SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE.”

Ugh…as per usual, the IBD editorial only tells a *portion* of the story (the that favors their far Right-wing tendencies that is).

“Try getting accurate information instead of the left wing drivel you drool over.”

Thanks for not even bothering to read the link that I posted, which clearly spells out the ENTIRE clause that the Right-wing IBD editorial *intentionally* took out of context…ugh…

On July 17, 2009 at 5:23 pm Alan Scott said:

DJ,

“The quote comes from page 16 of the bill, it is NOT “Right-wing editorial” it is FACT. Try getting accurate information instead of the left wing drivel you drool over.”

There you go again confusing him with facts.

I found another example of Government involved health care failures. This is from the WSJ 7/11/09. Republican Mitt Romney got an Obama-like plan enacted in Massachusetts in 06. “This was supposed to cover everybody and save money too. We’ve written before about how costs have exploded,”

Even before this, Massachusetts had mandates that required insurance providers to charge everyone the same money no matter pre-existing conditions. The mandates allow folks to wait until just before they are about to run up big medical bills to buy medical insurance. After treatment they cancel the insurance. They then pay a penalty then for not having insurance, but it is far less than the medical expenses. “so people seem to be gaming the Massachusetts system.” This is raising the costs for those who pay for 12 months.

Earth to wigglesworth: This is another REAL WORLD example of government interference in health care. It is not some theoretical Obama dream of what we hope happens. As always, I invite all comers to give me an example of government health care successes.

Earlier I asked you if you were willing to go down the street and inform your elderly neighbor that she couldn’t have a hip replacement, you did not respond. However, the clueless Comrade did, and if I am not mistaken (and I’m not) he copy/pasted my words and then responded that it would never happen.

For clarity, my point was (and remains) that with the single payer plan you so joyously support-along with our Dear Leader chairman Mao-bama, health care will be rationed, particularly among the elderly.

Here is the language in the Democrat Health care bill;

Advance Care Planning Consultation
‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
vance care planning, including key questions and
considerations, important steps, and suggested peo-
ple to talk to.
‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
vance directives, including living wills and durable
powers of attorney, and their uses.
‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care plan-
ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal
service organizations (including those funded
through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail-
able, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title (pgs 425-426).

(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara-
graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items— (pg 430).

Here, the Congress is quite clear that doctors will be required to counsel seniors every five years, and among the topics discussed, is how to end their life. In other words, telling your elderly neighbor she can’t have a hip replacement, and should consider other options-like suicide.

A country founded on the RIGHT to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS, has a bill in the Congress of the United States where all three are directly threatened, just so “the collective” can have FREE health care. Anyone, ANYONE who supports or advocates a single payer health plan, especially the one currently in the Congress, is a selfish, disgusting human being.

“For clarity, my point was (and remains) that with the single payer plan you so joyously support-along with our Dear Leader chairman Mao-bama, health care will be rationed, particularly among the elderly.”

Health care is “rationed” right this second by faceless private health insurance companies!! Also, for the who-knows-what-time, Obama’s plan is NOT a single payer system!!

The discussions that you are getting so riled up over “DJ” already exist right this second in our current system. Patients & their health care providers talk about living wills (and durable powers of attorney), a health care proxy (which is just a document that allows one to appoint an agent to make health care decisions in the event that you can’t make them), and end-of-life services (like palliative care & hospice) all the time.

I had this very discussion with my primary care doctor just last year about typing up a living will & designating a health care proxy, and I’m not anywhere near my end of life…I think…lol… When my Mom got cancer about 10 years ago, she drafted a durable power of attorney document for me to have in case she didn’t do well with her treatments, which she did thankfully. These are exactly the kind of simple discussions that ALL Americans should have with their families & doctors so that people aren’t put through unnecessary pain & suffering. These are the type of decisions that have NOTHING to do with govt. wants IMO & *everything* to do with what patients, families, and doctors work out amongst themselves.

“Congress is quite clear that doctors will be required to counsel seniors every five years, and among the topics discussed, is how to end their life. In other words, telling your elderly neighbor she can’t have a hip replacement, and should consider other options-like suicide.”

WRONG! Where does it say that “suicide” is the preferred treatment for those that need a “hip replacement”?? Where is it?!?! It’s NOT there, period.

As someone that claims to be a Libertarian at heart “DJ”, you of all people should be in favor death with dignity laws (which is a completely separate issue), which have NOTHING to with something as simple as a hip replacement surgeries.

“Anyone, ANYONE who supports or advocates a single payer health plan, especially the one currently in the Congress, is a selfish, disgusting human being.”

Please, spare us your uninformed & useless hyperbole “DJ”. Once again, you’re simply fear-mongering on an issue that you truly know NOTHING about, period end of story.

DJ, you can leave your interpretation about my “tingly” insides out of this, if you please!

I asked a simple yes/no question. You responded with the Encyclopedia Brittanica. :)

Be that as it may, you did make my point. Obama said he supported single payer health care during the campaign. He was then elected by the American people, and at a greater margin of victory than Bush ever received.

Thus, you might make the deduction that since he said it and still got the votes, that the American people, at the very least, aren’t poisoned to the idea. You might even say he had a mandate, perhaps some of that world famous “political capital,” eh?

I have to admit, it is a little amusing to see you trying to prove that Obama supports single payer health care when that is what he campaign on. Heh! Good digging. What other “secrets” can you come up with?

The point is that what Obama is touting now is in no, way, shape or form a single-payer health care system, period. I, for one, wish that it was and would have no problem supporting it here & anywhere else!

You asked a question, I answered it. Those of us on the right are required by you on the left to PROVE our point. That is why I put the links up. Had I simply replied with “YES” you would have demanded proof anyway, call it a preemptive strike.

The Obama voters did not specifically vote for him solely because of his stance on a single payer health care plan, many voted for him because of his (now broken) promise to get the US out of Iraq, his (now broken) promise to change the way things get done in Washington, his (now broken) promise to allow the people to have a few days to read bills before he signed them, his (now broken) promise to eliminate pork.

Lastly, if those who voted for Obama (remember the margin of victory you mentioned) are so supportive of his single-payer health care plan, why are the House AND the Senate versions running into so much trouble? Seems to me that if he has a mandate (your words) the bill would already be at Cahirman Mao-bama’s desk to sign, yet the House can’t even get their own party to vote for it. As a reminder, the House and the Senate DO NOT NEED a single Republican to vote for the bill, yet Dame Pelosi doesn’t have the votes.

Your position that the Obama supporters want his health care plan is without merit.

In the past, Presidents such as Lincoln and Truman did the right thing, not the popular thing.
Since we are back to the Clintonian standard of poll driven morality, I thought I might note that Obama the Great’s poll numbers have slipped ever so slightly.

“Obama said he supported single payer health care during the campaign. He was then elected by the American people, and at a greater margin of victory than Bush ever received.”

My perception of your logic is that poll numbers are morality. Margins of victory in elections and approval numbers in polls are your definition of right. Therefore, since Obama’s numbers are starting to come to earth, he must be less good of a leader than he was just a few weeks and months ago.

Your perception is faulty. My point had nothing to do with the “morality” of Obama’s position, or my morality either, for that matter. My point was that speaking in favor of single payer health care wasn’t enough to keep the American public from voting for him. Indeed, he was public about supporting single payer health care during the campaign. I then extrapolated that point a bit to wonder if his subsequent election could be viewed an an endorsement of his position.

I’m not sure where you picked up the perception that poll numbers affect my definition of morality. (Which is, by the way, rather insulting to someone who considers himself highly ethical and moral.) Reviewing this thread the word “poll” didn’t come up much and I only used it to make a point about the 2009 flip-flopping trend of some in regards to the same.

“Your perception is faulty. ” Perhaps, but your argument fails to pursuade me. I lump you in with all of the star struck Obama supporters. Doing that, I may unfairly attribute all of their positions to you.

All of us have argued extensively here and I doubt whether any of us truly knows how to explain the Democrat’s health plan to an average Joe. Barak Obama sure can’t. What my side HAS done well, lately, is explain the huge cost of Obama-care.

On a previous exchange you chastised me for calling our President, Obull$hitter. With the broken promises on lobbyists, the double speak on deficit reduction and earmarks, and the filibuster way he answers questions, I believe that President Obama’s falling numbers mean that more and more Americans are agreeing with me.

“(Which is, by the way, rather insulting to someone who considers himself highly ethical and moral.)”

I do not meet many people who do not consider themselves highly ethical and moral. I do not question your ethics. I question the ethics of those you support.

Please explain how Obama saying he supports single payer health care is unethical.

You support your guy and that’s what? Common sense? Good politics? Being highly moral? I support my guy and the insults come out. Unlike you, I’m simply “starstruck.” I sure get tired of sound-bite playbook politics.

“Please explain how Obama saying he supports single payer health care is unethical.”

I will give the same answer in two versions. First in Obama-speak.

President Obama’s remarks are calibrated to obscure the true costs to the relevant constituencies of his proposed single party health care legislation. Also his plan to cut $ 600 billion from Medicade and Medicare, with out negatively impacting patients, strains the credulity of any knowledgeable person.

Now the same answer in plain English.

President Obama is flat out lying about the costs and details of his single payer health care plan.

You’ve failed to *prove* that Obama is lying, or even that his cost estimates are faulty. You’ve said so, but you’ve offered no proof. Assuming he is inaccurate in some way, you immediately leap to “lying” without stopping to consider that it is an honest mistake and/or honest usage of different calculations and assumptions. I think that makes you somewhat unreliable as a gauge of Obama’s ethics in regards to lying.

It is my turn to be amused by your statement. Your side and my side have been throwing rocks at each other forever. You guys are in charge and NOW you are tired of
“sound-bite playbook politics.”

“You’ve failed to *prove* that Obama is lying, or even that his cost estimates are faulty. You’ve said so, but you’ve offered no proof”

Ahhhh, it must be me,,,,,,,.

The CBO has said that Obama’s numbers don’t work. Your side has bragged that Mister Obama is the smartest man ever to hold the office. If his numbers are wrong, then he is either lying or he is stupid. Since he is the smartest man to be President in over 2 centuries, logic dictates that he is the greatest liar since Clinton.

You called me “starstruck” which is a lot of things, like rude, unproductive, and not the least of which, totally inaccurate. If you run around thinking things are true which in fact are totally inaccurate you have to admit, that makes you pretty useless as a source of information. If your observations and deductions are wrong in one area they may very well be wrong in others.

Calling me “starstruck” is the precise comment I was alluding to with my response about “sound-bite playbook politics.”

“The Obama voters did not specifically vote for him solely because of his stance on a single payer health care plan”

I never claimed they did. What I said was (sigh) that he stated his position on SPHC and then they *still* voted for him. Again, as I said, at the very least that could be interpreted as the issue not being a poison pill to the voters.

“You might even say he had a mandate, perhaps some of that world famous “political capital,” eh?”

Claiming a “Mandate” certainly sounds like you are taking the position that the single payer health care plan Obama advocates is the PRIMARY reason he got votes, not a secondary reason, I stand by my statement that your position is without merit.

I did not call you starstruck. My comment: “I lump you in with all of the star struck Obama supporters. Doing that, I may unfairly attribute all of their positions to you.”

When you said “I support my guy and the insults come out.”, you validated my grouping or lumping you in with the starstruck. When I said that I had unfairly attributed all of their stuff to you, I was partially un-lumping you from them.

Your comment that I’m inaccurate and I’m thus useless as a source, rings hollow to me. Considering the inaccuracy of your definition of starstruck.

I can only guess that you did not bother to check out the proofs on my CBO comments owing to my inaccuracies.

You didn’t call me “starstruck.” You just “lumped me in.” Have you understudied with Rove? LOL!

The whole “starstruck” thing, either way, is just a friggin’ joke, whether you meant it at more or not. Just another example of twisted partisan logic. “I fail to see how you could vote for the guy I hate, therefore, you must be starstruck.” Classic faulty logic and reasoning.

The beauty of it is that when you vote for someone, that same explanation never occurs to you. It’s only the other idiots that vote the way they do because they are starstruck. Unlike you they clearly lack the ability to reason and support issues.

I post my views. You can agree or disagree. If you disagree, you can ask me to back up what I said. I have done that. You can check out my sources. You can then agree, or you can try to disprove my sources or prove that those sources do not prove what I wrote. You have done none of this. You prefer to take offense over trivialities.

I have stated that your guy, President Barak Obama, is a liar about his health care proposals. I have offered evidence, detailed evidence that he intentionally lies. I am waiting for you to shoot holes in my arguments.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, Federal Government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.